it into 2014. a change in the current policy. we will have to tell you we are going to have to break away here for our coverage of the u.s. house live but let you know that this briefing by the president will be carried live on c-span.org. we'll also show it to you later in our schedule. the president's in cleveland this afternoon speaking on the economy. he's visiting a steel mill. we'll have that live at 3:40 eastern on c-span3. house taking up work on the water resources bill. they'll take up a bill -- they're live. r prayer today wild ur guest chaplain from midway baptist church in north carolina. the chaplain: almighty god, giver of eternal life, we thank you for this great republic. a nation conceived in religious liberty and the free exercise thereof. today as generations before us hand of our divine

providence to guide the affairs of our nation and those who serve. guide our representatives, we pray, on a path consistent with the original intent of our constitution. grant them the strength of character to defend life, liberty and freedom. for future generations. lead them in the path of righteousness, which will exalt this nation. as public servants, keep them from the sin of arrogance and self-centered pride by reminding them they are accountable to the people and to you for their decisions. and i pray each representative of this house may know that they are greatly loved by you. as a follower of jesus christ, i pray this in him name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, purr superintendent to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from illinois. >> mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum s not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady rom illinois, ms. kelly. ms. kelly: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, is recognized for one minute. i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i am pleased that you accepted our nomination of commissioner larry philips to lead the house with the opening prayer. in the short time that i represented the county, i've

come to know larry as an outstanding elected official and a thoughtful person. reverend philips is serving in his 25th year as senior pastor in my area. he's grad yit and holds a master of art in biblical studies and completed his masters of religious education. mr. speaker, it has been said in north carolina there are re baptists than there are north carolinaians and reverend philips and his family belong to that very distinguished group. larry philips was born in cherokee county, north carolina, and has been married for 36 years and is father to andrea and darren, farnle to megan and grand frn to madison and -- grandfather to madison and bryson. he was elected to the board of commissioners in 2004 and served on the economic county

commission, economic development task force, including the north carolina association of county commissioners and board of directors. we're pleased, mr. speaker, to have larry philips as our guest speaker today, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? the speaker: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the speaker: madam speaker, i heard from many of my constituents over the last couple of weeks who are struggling mightily under the president's health care law and from hamilton is one of them. he and his wife recently retired but aren't old enough yet for medicare. their health care plan is being canceled. it's being replaced with one that will cost $500 more per month. now, think about that. $500 more per month every month for their new health care plan.

then, there's brian from westchester, my hometown. he runs a small business, just like i used to. brian's been told that his health care premiums are going to double. if that happens, brian said to me, he might have to close his doors. that means his workers will lose their plan and lose their job. now, these are just two stories from my district in ohio, and there's millions more of them all around the country. premiums are going up, people are losing their coverage and small businesses are being terrified. the president's health care law our rting a lot of constituents. if you're serious about helping them, he can make good on his promise and support the keep your health care act. i would encourage every member to help keep that promise and vote for this important bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california eek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

>> today my thoughts are with the victims of supertyphoon haiyan in the philippines. the high foon ravaged the philippines, bringing sustained winds that reached 175 miles per hour and storm surges reaching 13 feet. ms. chu: in the aftermath, reports of more than 2,300 dead, but the number could be far larger. haiyan wiped out roads, electricity and communications in much of the country. mayors are faced with unthinkable decisions like choosing between transporting in food and relief supplies or transporting out the bodies of victims. when those in the other parts of the globe are in need due to disaster, the united states always lends a hand. right now the philippines are in need. i urge members of congress and all members of this united states of america to continue opening their hearts to provide

critical support to the recovery efforts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from -- the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. black: madam speaker, a constituent is one of tens of thousands across our state who received one of these. a letter canceling their insurance policy. greg wrote to me that he, and i quote, operates a small painting business and was very happy with cover tennessee program for small businesses and their employees. this program is being canceled effective january, 2014, because it does not meet the minimum requirements of obamacare. this directly contradicts the promise made by president obama that we could keep our existing programs, he says.

madam speaker, just yesterday 992 s reported that only tennesseans, yes, less than 1,000 tennesseans selected new coverage through the obamacare exchanges. yet, at least 94,000, yes, 94,000 across our state have lost their coverage. the president must honor his promise to the american people and work with congress to protect the americans like greg. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kelly: thank you, madam speaker. last week i met with businesses around my district as part of the economic development tour. i went to a coffee shop in hyde park where people go for great coffee and conversation.

i met with one ranked 63rd on the foshese list of best small businesses in america. they are keeping our troops safe by investing in technologies that protect them from the harmful effects of radiation. i spoke with workers at new course steel in kankakee who are helping lead the manufacturing renaissance in the united states. these businesses take pride in the work they do, but they need a congress that's willing to work just as hard for them. we need folks on both sides who will reduce the barriers to business growth and support the small businesses that create 65% of the new jobs in our economy. i recently introduced h.r. 3328, the american work opportunity act, which extends the work opportunity tax credit for businesses that put americans back to work. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and to work together to pass a comprehensive jobs bill. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition?

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> madam speaker, this past weekend we remembered the brave men and women who have sacrificed so much for this nation. mr. mult green: in many cases their families joined in their sacrifice, forced to be apart for birthdays and family celebrations while their loved ones served overseas. i'm so grateful for these defenders of freedom who make the tough commitment to be away from their families so they can protect us abroad so we can enjoy peace at home. mr. hultgren: as these military families make sacrifices, we remember our own families who benefit from their service. i want to wish my incredible son, kaden, a happy birthday as he turns 12 today. your mom and i are so blessed for having you in our family and we are looking forward for the great future god has planned for you. i am so glad we will be able to see each other this weekend and celebrate when many other fathers and mothers abroad have

to wait months to celebrate with their own kids. birthdays and holidays give us a chance to pause and remember them this year. thank you, veterans, and happy birthday, kaden. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: madam speaker, earlier this week, the federal communications commission chair put forth a proposal to end government support for sports blackouts. this is a welcomed step in the fight to end blackouts once and for all. in my home community of western new york, there's a threat of a blackout for the next two home games. this means that despite overwhelming community support, men spent on merchandise and tax dollars being spent for stadium improvements, buffalo fans will not be able to see their nfl team on television. on tuesday, i introduced the furthering access and networks for sports, orphans act, which would eliminate -- or fans

act, which would eliminate these blackouts. senator blumenthal introduced similar legislation in the senate. blackout rules are unfair, outdated and alienate fans. i'll continue to fight until sports teams do the right thing for their fans. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? > i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to shed light on the president's broken health care promise. the president promised over and over again that if they like their insurance plans they can keep them but that's not true. here's what wendy from my district wrote me. my blue cross blue shield policy will be canceled starting march 1, 2014. i checked out other policy options under obamacare and the least expensive qualifying plan was an additional $208.44 per

month. this is with a higher deductible, larger out-of-pocket expense and only three doctor visits per year per person. this is outrageous. additionally, this rate only includes me and my three children. not even my husband. i guess we can't even keep a family together under obamacare. as wendy's story exemplifies and as we predicted since 2010, obamacare is fundamentally flawed in both concept and execution. dictated health care can't cant beat health care choices. as a health care professional i'll protect people from obamacare and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to talk about the recent veterans tour i conducted across my region of illinois. -- b

mrs. bustos: i listened to their priorities and to their concerns. i held listening round tables with veterans to talk about ways we can cut down on the shameful backlog of v.a. claims. to make sure that veterans have access to good-paying jobs, to education and to job training programs. and to put an end to veterans homelessness. i also worked a shift at the sterling, illinois, v.a. clinic where i shadowed nurses and saw firsthand new technology that helps veterans with treatment closer to home. and finally, i interviewed leyland chandler for the veterans history congress. mr. chandler is a world war ii veteran from galesburg, illinois, who was a prisoner of war in the pacific theater. he received many awards and declarations for his brave service to our nation. he is a true american hero, and i am honored to share his story with the public. during my time in congress, i have made veterans my top priority, and i will continue

to fight to protect their benefits that they have worked so hard to achieve. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. today i want to talk about debby brown from garfield county in washington state. she has a daughter and two grandchildren, 53 years old. she works at the local gas station to help support her family. and a few weeks ago she was one of many who was told, as of december 31, 2013, her plan, her health insurance plan, would no longer be available. she's looked at other plans and hasn't found one that's affordable. so she is uninsured now. and unfortunately her story is too common and it's repeated all

across this country. heartbreaking stories of everyday, average, hardworking americans losing their health insurance. we can do better. too many americans are receiving cancellation notices. too many americans are losing their doctors and too many americans don't have affordable health insurance because of the affordable care act. 3 1/2 million americans have seen their plans canceled, almost 300,000 in washington state alone. president obama promised the american people that if you liked your health care plan, you could keep it. not if he liked your plan you could keep it. let's support the legislation tomorrow. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to call on the house to pass the employment nondiscrimination act which passed the senate with bipartisan support. it's a bill with a simple

premise. that people should be hired and fired and assessed based on their capabilities and job performance, not on prejudice. it would take the commonsense step of extending federal employment nondiscrimination protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity. i spent a decade working in economic development. and the research is pretty clear. one of the prime drivers of economic growth is tolerance. ms. kilpatrick: and yet in -- mr. kilmer: and yet in 29 states it's legal to fire an employee because of sexual orientation. the rights granted in my state shouldn't end at our borders. failure to act on this doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't make legislative sense and it doesn't make moral sense. but i'm not here just as an economic developer. i'm here as someone whose faith dictates that i love and respect all people. and live by the golden rule. and i'm here as a dad of two little girls. i want my daughters to grow up in a country where discrimination is a thing of the

past. where folks can't be treated differently because of their gender or who they love. it's time to pass this. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina eek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. president ofr, the iran is doing what he was put in power to do. get the obama administration to weaken international economic sanctions. our sanctions, madam speaker, are working. unfortunately secretary kerry and this administration have been chasing an agreement with iran that relaxes sanctions and allows iran to continue enriching material and developing their heavy water reactor. mr. holding: this is an outcome that the regime in tehran desires and they want -- won't have to make any concessions to get it. madam speaker, the tentative deal does nothing to address iran's sponsorship of terrorist organizations like hezbollah, nor does it deal with their

overt persecution of religious minorities in iran or their vast human rights abuses. madam speaker, as prime minister netanyahu stated, this is a very, very bad deal. the administration needs to stop negotiating bad deals and cease their efforts to block a new round of sanctions. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, over this last weekend we celebrated the life of an educator, civil rights activist and houston's first hispanic-elected official. but a true, a true and wonderful and deserving, outstanding american. i rise today to pay tribute to a legendary pioneer figure in the history of houston.

and as i said, the first hispanic elected to public office. he died on november 4. but this weekend we had a chance to be with his family and to celebrate his life, to name a neighborhood center after him, to hear the testimonies of his passion and his love of bringing people together. he was inspired by president john f. kennedy and went to the peace corps where he met his wonderful and beautiful wife and had two children, a daughter and son. to hear them speak of the love for their family. he met his wife in the philippines and we know today that we're praying for all of them. he of course in 1967 moved his family back to houston. we're so delighted. he served as a director of jobs for progress. in 1971 he was elected controller of the city of houston. president carter said he's a man who has the highest possible reputation. he's a public administrator and i think he can tell you that he's going to take on one of the most difficult jobs in government. we thank you as you serve the

united states government. may you rest in peace. the speaker pro tempore: the entlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, despite promises that if you like your current health plan you can keep it, millions of americans have already received cancellation notices regarding current coverage. no matter how you feel about the affordable care act, ohioans that like their health care coverage should be able to keep it. i've received countless emails and letters from ohioans losing their coverage or being forced to pay more. mr. joyce: one ohioan that reached out to me because he was concerned about how higher costs could affect his family was carl from newberry, ohio. carl and his wife have six kids. recently bought a house. stay busy because not only is carl a full-time employee, he's a full-time student. carl and his wife recently

received a notice that their family would have to pay 30% to 40% more for their health care coverage next year. now, carl and his wife are worried that they won't be able to afford the mortgage on their new home because of the increased health care costs. mr. speaker, ohioans shouldn't be forced to pay more for health care because of a law coming out of washington. that's why this week the house will vote for the keep your health plan act. which will allow plans available on the individual market today to continue to be offered next year. it is a commonsense bill that will protect americans from losing or paying more for their coverage and i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, when the affordable care act was first enacted, the american people were promised if they liked their coverage they could keep it. despite those assurances, millions of americans who are

happy with their insurance coverage are finding out they won't get to keep their coverage. i'm proud to co-sponsor legislation offered by our republican colleague and committee chairman fred upton that gives the folks in my district in georgia the opportunity to keep their current health insurance plan. mr. barrow: i hope we'll pass that legislation this week. many americans don't feel well served by the limited health insurance options available in the exchanges. and people resent having been misled by their elected officials about their options. it's important for us to give the american people the option to choose which plans work best for them and this bill would help. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today on behalf of the thousands of pennsylvanians from my district who are going to lose their health care coverage because of the rules and regulations of obamacare. i invited a number of them into

my office and their stories were both revealing and heartbreaking. a small businesswoman from newtown square shared her story of shopping for a new plan and her policy was canceled. she must now pay more each month for a plan she doesn't like and coverage she does not want. another is losing her doctor after more than 20 years. mr. meehan: because she was forced to switch insurance companies. her long-term doctor isn't covered under the new, more expensive plan. and one constituent received this letter. and this one's from her insurance company informing her that she'd have to pay as much as $3,500 more, it has higher deductibles and higher co-pays. madam speaker, americans are already struggling in this economy. tomorrow the house will vote to ensure that the families who can keep it.an president obama and senate democrats should keep their promise to the american people

and do the same. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. o'rourke: madam speaker, i have the honor of representing more than 2,500 border patrol agents in el paso, texas. they're a big reason why our border with mexico is as secure as it has ever been and they help keep el paso the safest city in the united states. it was this year, the year before and the year before that. now, despite their successful track record, their vigilance at our borders with mexico and canada, and the tough conditions under which they work, they're working with an antiquated, unfair and inflexible pay system. that's why i'm happy to work across the aisle with representative chaffetz to introduce h.r. 3463, the border patrol pay reform act. this provides a fair, flexible

and fiscally responsible way to compensate our border patrol agents. it allows management to deploy resources where they're most needed. it gives our agent it's some predictability in their work schedule and it saves the american taxpayer over $1 billion over the next 10 years. during a time of sequester and tight budgets, we need to use existing resources as judiciously as we can. i think this bill accomplishes that, while supporting our border patrol agents. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. america's over six weeks into the obamacare rollout and things are just a mess. folks are still having problems signing up but even more painful are the letters people are receiving canceling their health insurance plans. families and individuals are being forced into different and oftentimes more expensive plans.

recently i asked folks to let me know how their premiums were being affected. mr. rogers: one person contacted me, their premium went up $200 a month. another family's premiums are going up $740 a month. the president promised from the beginning, quote, if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period, closed quote. but that's turned out not to be the case and he knew it all along. obamacare has many flaws but forcing people off their current plans when they were promised they could keep them is really starting to hit home now. that's why i strongly support h.r. 3350, to keep your health insurance plan act. the legislation would allow health care plans on the individual market to remain available so people could have the option to keep their current health insurance if they want to. i still believe the best path forward is to get rid of obamacare, but for now, we should support this bill to help our hardworking americans keep their health insurance. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek

recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to extend micon dolences to the thousands of families both in the philippines and here in the united states who have lost loved ones due to supertyphoon haiyan. ms. speier: i proudly represent the largest population of filipino americans in the continental united states and many of them are in anguish right now, wanting to know whether or not their loved ones are still alive. the question that some may ask is, well, why should we help? well, there's the obvious humanitarian reasons, but more importantly, we must never forget that in world war ii, president roosevelt sought to have filipinos take arms and fight for us, some 250,000 of

them, during world war ii. we must help. we have sent the u.s.s. george washington which has arrived today, seven other ships are on their way, there are c-130's and ospreys that have also been put in operation. congressman honda and i have introduced a resolution and i hope the house will take it up swiftly, seeking support for the filipino people and providing the aid they need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i'm holding a copy of a letter that one of my constituents received informing him that his current health care plan, a plan that he was satisfied with, and that was able to afford, is being canceled thanks to regulations imposed by the president's

health care law. thousands of letters like this one have gone out to hardworking stens in northern michigan -- citizens in northern michigan. mr. benishek: i asked my constituents to reach out to me about their experiences so i could hear firsthand about the impact of this disastrous overhaul. i received 200 responses in a matter of days. patrick will see his annual health insurance bill rise by ver $6,000 on january 1, 2014. russell was finally able to log onto the president's website after 14 straight days of trying, only to discover that the closest equivalent option for his plan will be far too expensive for him to afford. i ask all my colleagues to join me, in order to repeal this disastrous health care law and work together in order to promote affordable, patient-centered reforms. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. e speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to once again speak about the issue of climate change which is affecting every country but as a world bank has found, the impacts are distributed equally, it's likely the porous nations will be hardest hit and the u.n. ranks the philippines the third most vulnerable to the effects of climate change because of its geography, poverty and the state of the infrastructure. mr. huffman: as all of my colleagues know, one of the most powerful storms on record tore through asia last week and the philippines in particular. the wake of typhoon haiyan, thousands are dead, hundreds of thousands more homeless. as we learn more about the devastation there, i ask my colleagues to pay careful yeb, on to the words of the head of the philippines delegation to the united nations climate talks and he

said, quote, what my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. typhoons such as haiyan and its impacts have a sobering reminder to the international community that we can't procrastinate on climate action. he's right. this is the latest wake-up call on climate change, so let's wake up. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. coble: madam speaker, thank you. how many times have we heard the president say, if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan? it doesn't matter how many times you say it oftentimes isn't true. many are getting letters from their insurance companies telling them their plans have been canceled. they're moms, dads, students, seniors, people who work diligently and should be able to count on their insurance when they need it.

what does obamacare offer them? maybe they lose their plan altogether, maybe their rates are going up, maybe they can't visit the doctors and hospitals they've been using for years. madam speaker, this has happened. i urge my victims to speak out. go tout house republican website at gop.gov and share your story. i -- go to the house republican website at gop.gov and share your story. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak on behalf of our valley's first honor flight. mr. costa: recently, my colleagues, representative honored the nes, service of valley -- san joaquin valley world war ii veterans. as tom brokaw noted, perhaps one of the greatest generation. these 69 men took off from fresno and landed here on our nation's capital to see the monuments to their service to our country. most of them for the first

time. in their youth, these men bravely but humbly answered their nation's call. decades later, our first san joaquin valley honor flight came to washington where they witnessed the changing of the guard and remembered those of their fellow soldiers who did not make it home. i also want to thank congress members hall and dingell who shared stories with them. this forever grateful nation is etter for the men's sacrifices and their lives they led when they returned home to their farms, their storefronts, their practices throughout the valley to build a better life for themselves and our nation. i want to thank you for allowing us to share their experience and to show our debt of gratitude for one in which we can never ever fully repay. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask permission to address the house for one

minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the promises upon which bamacare was built are crumbling. ruth ann from hickory, north carolina, is a healthy 61-year-old. last month she received this letter from her insurance provider. dear ruth ann, due to affordable care act regulations, your current medical plan won't be offered for 2014. the monthly premium for your new plan delblr 738.05. ruth ann is right to be frustrated by this news. today she pays $396 each month for a plan with a lower deductible that covers the services she needs. paying $350 more each month is out of the question for ruth ann and her family. her next best option under obamacare is to pay $510 a month for a higher deductible plan that will force her to pay out of pocket for some of the basic tests and procedures her current insurance provides.

ruth ann says, in effect, i'm now relegated to a policy that will only be helpful in case of catastrophic illness resulting in hospitalization. how is that anything resembling affordable care? i yield back -- resembling affordable care? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to reaffirm the solidarity between the united philippines at this tragic time. as the people of the philippines rebuild their infrastructure, aid their injured and mourn their deceased, the u.s. must remain a beacon of international humanitarian leadership. s. meng: since typhoon yolanda, the united states has provided $20 million -- over $20 million in immediate humanitarian assistance. vital necessities like water,

plastic sheeting and over 35 food tons of emergency aid, this aid is desperately needed. the typhoon has impacted eight million filipinos and has taken the lives of nearly 3,400 people, a number that's expected to rise. it has touched the 17,000 people of filipino heritage living in my district in queens, new york. to them, i offer unwavering pport and an unflinching resolve to do everything possible to help those affected overseas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, americans want congress to support policies that help put our nation back to work. mr. yoder: creating jobs is the key to improving our economy. however, too often government stands in the way by providing costly regulations, creating

uncertainty and hindering job growth. i recently visited a waste water treatment facility in my district. while there i learned that new e.p.a. mandates, specifically on wet weather waste water treatment will impact ratepayers by 25%. new e.r.a. regulations on an energy plan in kansas city, kansas, will force the board of public utilities there to make costly modifications. $250 million in costs resulting in 15% to 20% monthly increases in the average electric bill to consumers and families and businesses in the county that are already feeling the crunch of hard economic times. these regulations are essentially hidden taxes on kansas families. many of whom are already pimpling pennies to pay their bills. -- pinchy pennies to pay their bills. madam speaker, regulations do not create jobs. let's get goff out of the way and let's put -- government out of the way and let's put americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? ms. sewell: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise

and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: madam speaker, i rise today to pay tribute and honor to the life and legacy of birmingham city council president maxine parker who passed away suddenly on tuesday, november 12, 2013. council woman parker was the epitome of grace, class and firm, yet gentle leadership. with her signature flower lapel on her -- on her lapel, she accented womanhood at the same time a soft spoken womanhood showed strength she offers to her family and her community. her love of family was second only to her love of her constituents in birmingham city council district four. through her eight-year tenure on the city council in birmingham, alabama, councilwoman parker was best known for her advocacy for environmental injustice on behalf of her constituents in north birmingham. in 2011, as a result of her

tireless advocacy, the environmental protection agency began its first major intervention in the area. and today that environmental cleanup still exists. on behalf of our nation, state of alabama and the city of birmingham, i am honored to pay tribute to the life and legacy of this phenomenal woman. she was indeed one of the most passionate community servants of her time. commit to continuing councilwoman parker's legacy of passion and concern for others. i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and legacy of birmingham city council president maxine herring parker. i yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, madam

speaker. madam speaker, i'm continuing the mission of mercy started right after theify foon hit the philippines -- the typhoon hit the fill -- the philippines. i just heard the president speak and he spoke of how the united states would do all that it can to help the people of the philippines. i'm also grateful to the members of my community. we have approximately 40,000 persons of filipino ancestry living in my area. that's the houston area, and a good many of them are persons that i represent. i am honored to tell you that they are working tirelessly to do all they can to help their brothers and sisters in the philippines. i am honored finally to say this. these are difficult times, but it is my belief that with our help we will be able to help the people of the philippines get through this tragic circumstance. there are two resolutions, h.res. 408, sponsors by members

engel and member royce. they are on the foreign affairs committee. that's the ranking member and the chair. another one, h.res. 404, which is sponsored by royce and engel, 408 by speier and honda. and i want to compliment them for what they've done. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in continued support of the affordable care act and the promise of high-quality, affordable health care for all. republicans and right-wing media are obsessed with , blems about healthcare.gov and this law is more than just a website. it's an affordable, quality health insurance for everyone, and the majority of americans who purchase their insurance,

purchase it outside of the individual market plan. and those individuals who purchased through their employer's offerings will suffer a price increase if the upton legislation, which will be coming before us shortly, passes. it's just a means to sabotage the affordable care act. i will not be in support of it. there's over 100,000 people who have now been able to attain insurance under the affordable care act. it's working. we need to work to improve it, and i stand ready to do so. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 893, an act

to provide for an increase effective december 1, 2013, in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation of survivors of certain disabled veterans and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the medicare lays before the house an enrolled -- the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 330, an act to amend the public health service act, to establish safeguards and standards of quality for research and transplantation of organs infected with h.i.v. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table h.r. 3080, with a senate amendment thereto, disagree to the senate amendment and agree to a conference requested by the senate thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3080, an act to

provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the united states, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have a motion at the desk, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. sean patrick maloney of new york moves that the managers on the part of the house that the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 3080 be instructed to receive from disagreement with the provisions contained in title 9 of the senate amendment relating to reducing the risks to life and property from dam failure in the united states through re-authorization of an ffective dam safety program. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. maloney, and the gentleman from

pennsylvania, mr. shuster, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. maloney: thank you, madam speaker. since joining the congress, i've been working across the aisle on a piece of critical legislation, the dam safety act, which gives communities all across america the support they need to ensure dams have the highest safety standards possible. many of these provisions were included in the bipartisan water developmentform and act known as wrrda, which overwhelmingly passed the house just a few weeks ago by a 417-3 vote margin. i certainly want to thank chairman shuster and the ranking member, rahall, and subcommittee ranking member bishop for the leadership on wrrda and for working closely with me on this important issue. with major storms like irene, hurricane sandy and tropical storm lee becoming more and more frequent, i believe congress needs to place a higher priority

on strengthening our infrastructure, particularly our oldest and often most vulnerable infrastructure, our dams. should our dam infrastructure fail in the midst of these storms, the effects could be far more catastrophic and immediate than most other components of our states' infrastructure, endangering people's lives, their property and their livelihoods. our country has over 87,000 dams and approximately 10,000 of these dams are what's known as high-hazard dams. there are dams in virtually every congressional district and community across the country. the failure of any of these high-hazard dams would cause widespread damage and loss of life. and of course major economic disruption. and approximately 40% of these high-hazard dams do not have an emergency action plan. i'd like to say that again. more than 40% of our most important dams, the high-hazard dams, the failure of which could cause the loss of life or major property damage, do not have an

emergency action plan. we live in a world now where we have these extreme weather events and you don't want to find out a dam is going to fail when you have a superstorm. the hudson valley, the communities i represent, is home to more than 800 dams and nearly 100 dams known as high-hazard dams. the failure of which could pose a serious risk to the economy and well-being of these communities and families. unfortunately during hurricane irene, many folks were impacted because of a dam failure. many of my neighbors were devastated when the echo lake dam released an estimated 100 million gallons of water. some people reported seeing an eight-foot wall of water rushing toward the town, causing catastrophic damage to the infrastructure and costing millions of dollars in property damage. folks like john and lisa who live in east village, the failure of this dam flooded their home, cracked their foundation and ripped the deck off their house.

for gary it meant more than $125,000 in property damage. and for businesses such as s.o.s. fuels, it meant their headquarters was condemned and in mere minutes the flood carried away cars and appliances, folks lost their furniture, valuables and their homes. from 2005 to 2009, 132 dams failed. so it is critical that every single community across the country be prepared and be protected. and they can be with this program. this important motion will make the final version of the dam safety program even better, by authorizing the dam safety program at $9.2 million per year over the next five years. $9.2 million, which could itself the cost of a single dam failure. and yet we know that in just a five-year period, 132 dams failed. the national dam safety program provides vital support to assist states like mine, new york, in

developing emergency action plans, implementing existing dam safety programs, assisting with the purchase of equipment and conducting dam inspections. for the first time, the senate provision would provide public awareness and outreach funding. and ian essential step to -- an essential step to ensure citizens know how to prepare for and respond to and recover from dam incidents and failures. it's far past time to start paying attention to a program that can make a real difference in people's lives. especially a program that is passed on a bipartisan basis -- has passed on a bipartisan basis since 1974. thank you, madam speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i rise to claim time in opposition and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i thank the madam speaker. the committee supports the national dam safety program. in fact, i commend the gentleman from new york to be working on

the dam act, because as a freshman several years ago, 12 years ago, it was my first piece of legislation that i authored, the dam bill. so, again, this is a critical program that saves lives, it protects communities and that is why we included language in h.r. safety mprove the dam program. there are minor differences between the house and the senate language. we look forward to working on reconciling those differences. and as the legislation moves forward and while we expect we will continue to have some negotiations with the senate on this issue, i am not opposed to the motion to instruct on this provision. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. maloney: i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania and at this time i would like to recognize the ranking -- the distinguished ranking member of the committee, my friend, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall. for as much time as she should -- for as much time as he should require. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: thank you, madam speaker. and i commend the gentleman from new york, mr. maloney, for offering this motion to instruct and for his leadership on this most vital issue, for the safety of american people. i also want to commend the full committee chairman, mr. shuster, the ranking member on our subcommittee, mr. bishop, the subcommittee chairman, mr. gibbs, for their tremendous work on the underlying bill and getting this to this point, where we are today. i am in strong support of the motion to instruct. this motion instructs the -- directs rather the conferees to recede to the senate provision that includes the dam safety act of 2013, which we altogether -- re-authorizes the dam safety program at reasonable levels. the dam safety program is about protecting lives. it is a critical program that provides much-needed education, training and assistance to state dam safety officials. dams protect our people, our

homes, our businesses from flooding. they provide essential drinking water, power to homes and business, critical irrigation for our nation's food supply, and recreational opportunities for our citizens. west virginians understand the importance of dams. the role they play in our daily lives. and the critical need to keep them safe. in 1972, a dam failure occurred at buffalo creek, west virginia, claiming 125 lives and injuring 1,000 more. destroying over 500 homes and causing more than $400 million in property damage. while this incident occurred more than 40 years ago, west virginians still remember the devastation caused by the dam failure and continue to mourn that loss of life. now to this tragedy, congress passed and created a national inventory of dams which led to the national dam safety program that this motion urges us to re-authorize today. today west virginia has more

than 600 dams included in the army corps of engineers' national inventory of dams. 2/3 of these dams are considered high-hazard dams, meaning that dam failure to result in loss of life and serious damage to homes, businesses, public utilities or highways. moreover, 110 of these high-hazard dams do not have an emergency action plan, putting lives of west virginia's citizens at greater risk. this motion to instruct will ensure that the program and investment are in place to help states and other dam owners inspect their dams and develop the emergency action plans that are necessary to ensure the continued safety of our citizens. across the country almost 1/3 of the nation's 87,000 dams pose a high or significant hazard to the life and property if failure occurs. and these dams consistently receive failing grades from the american society of civil engineers. this year's no different. the 2013 engineers report card gives our dams a d. let me repeat that.

a d. mr. speaker, madam speaker, it is critical that congress re-authorize the national dam safety program and ensure the safety of our citizens. i again commend the gentleman from new york, sean patrick maloney, and i urge my colleagues to join him in supporting the motion to strike conferees on h.r. 3080. i yield back my time to mr. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. maloney: at this time, madam speaker, i'd like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, as as much time as he wishes to consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gallego: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of mr. maloney's motion and to underscore the importance of the safety of dams. i'd like to talk for a moment about the small town, growing up

in west texas. i heard often the story of a fateful night in sanderson, texas, in june of 1965. after heavy rains caused a 15-foot wall of water to come rolling through sanderson canyon. the water came down with such force that it turned bridges and buildings into torpedoes. two cemeteries lost burial markers, caskets were washed out, families lost homes. many lost everything. 28 people in sanderson, texas, died and two were never recovered. since that flood in 1965, 11 dams were built, which in unison have acted as a flood control system for sanderson canyon. we don't want any more sanderson flood-type experiences. el paso, del rio all have experiences with water rushing through canyons and coming

through and causing damage and the only thing that has saved life and property has been these dams that have been in existence now for some time. those dams are incredibly important, as the ranking member mentioned earlier. they're incredibly important in saving property, they're incredibly important in saving lives and significantly across the country, nearly half of these dams are more than 50 years old. it is incredibly important that they be maintained and maintained well. in del rio, a dam holds water from the rio grande, the pecos river and the devil's river. imagine the importance of that dam. and while that dam is maintained by a binational commission, there are many other dams in that region and in that area that serve not only to save water for agricultural purposes,

but many other purposes as well. and in fact even in san antonio, the world famous river walk is controlled by a series of small dams and when it rains there, as it has recently, those dams become incredibly, incredibly important. again, madam speaker, i rise to support mr. maloney's motion. in that sanderson example that i gave earlier, households up until recently have been spending $700 a year on flood insurance annually, even if there hasn't been a flood in 4 1/2 decades. we can save a lot of people a lot of money if we just make sure that these dams are built well, that they're maintained well and that they serve their function not only now but in the foreseeable future. so with that, madam speaker, again i thank mr. maloney for

bringing this issue to the attention of the membership of the congress and again i rise in support of his motion to instruct. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. maloney: madam speaker, in my opening remarks i also should have mentioned the chair of the subcommittee, mr. gibbs. i'd like to thank him, in addition to the chairman and the ranking member, and my ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. bishop, for the excellent work they've done on this and with that i'd like to yield to my colleague, mr. nolan from ♪, the -- minnesota, the great state of minnesota, for such time as he should require. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. knollenberg: thank you. i ask unanimous con -- mr. nolan: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nolan: mr. speaker, members of the house, i rise in support of the motion to recommit and i would like to also commend chairman shuster, ranking member

rahall and in particular my colleague, sean patrick maloney, for bringing this important issue to the attention of the house and for your motion to instruct. we clearly have 14,000 dams throughout the country that have been designated as high-hazards. that's a well-known fact. also the fact is there are 20,000 dams that are over a half facts ry old and these underscore the neglect, as well as the profound need to put forth better inspection plans and to invest more in the rebuilding of our dams and our infrastructure. . quite flapingly that's what the bill is all about.

not just investing in our dams but investing in our roads, our bridges, our ports, our rivers, our lakes, our health, our safety, our tourism, our economy , and in some respects that's what has laid the foundation for the great economic success and prosperity that we enjoy here in this country. we have neglected it. and this is an important and he profound motion to address the dam issue. if you'll pardon the expression in that manner. but this whole bill is important for us to embrace, and i commend the members of the committee for putting this together, and i hope that we'll all join and continue through this house in a way that we did in committee in a bipartisan manner to recognize the profound need that we have here, start reinvesting in

america, it will create jobs, it will increase our prosperity. it will help reduce the deficit in our budgets. it will have so many profound and positive rippling effects throughout our country and throughout our economy. it's with great pleasure that i have the opportunity to stand here and embrace this and urge my support for the motion to recommit and perhaps even more importantly the importance of passing the wrda legislation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york continues to reserve. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. maloney: i would like to forgive the gentleman from minnesota for his vulgarity on the house floor. it's hard not to curse when you mention the title of the motion. it's also not hard to curse when you realize only 5% of the a dams have an action plan.

i would like to yield to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for as much time as he should consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank mr. maloney for his work and mr. shuster for his work and we dam well better get prepared to increase our infrastructure spending or we'll have more problems. more problems in this country. the motion to instruct conferees is well taken and well drafted. our roads, rivers, railways, and runways got a d-plus on the american society of engineers' 2013 report card for america's infrastructure. that's inexcusable. a d-plus on our infrastructure. we used to be the pride of our country and one of the ways we produce jobs and put goods to market. the fact that this was awarded to a world superpower and leader in technological innovation is unacceptable. passing wrda is an important step toward turning around our nation's investment program. proud to work with and support our outstanding chairman, chairman shuster, and ranking

member rahall when we passed the bill in both the transportation committee and house floor. our committee understands, i think not totally, i can't speak for the whole committee but in general, that earmarks aren't a bad thing. earmarks are something that greases the wheels that makes the engine of government run and work effectively and bipartisanly. we need to bring those back to make this house work together, democrats and republicans, so we all have something invested for our districts. that's important. people ask about dysfunction here. people not working together. it's because everybody doesn't have some part of the pie. something for their districts that they can be proud of. we need to get that back and people need to understand that title article 1 says this congress is supposed to appropriate the moneys. that's why our infrastructure's weaken, and that's why we have so many projects along rivers where the corps ofning nears don't have funding and direction to keep our rivers moving and moving commerce forward. wrrda doesn't mean not just about our nation's waterways,

locks, and dams, which it needs to be, it means thousands of people will be put to work to make the improvements necessary to improve the national infrastructure. the effect of sequestration on our nation's infrastructure are real. it's time to get back on track to smart investments that make our nation more competitive in the global marketplace. the core corps of engineers has a backlog of authorized projects excess of $ 0 billion. the account has been reduced by $688 billion since 2010. we should be doing more to build our infrastructure and create jobs, not less. according to a study by the american society of civil engineers, if we don't make new investments in our new water infrastructure, we'll lose $416 billion in g.d.p. by 2020 due to increased cost and loss of work of productivity. this means real loss, real american families. madam speaker, i think in turkey they are probably improving their infrastructure. we should be doing the same thing here in america, madam speaker. it's important we do that.

without investment, the average american family would have to adjust their household income to account for a $900 squeeze as a result of falling personal incomes. the longer we put it off the more the investment will cost and the more people will be out of work and difficult it will be for our economy to get righted. i support this motion to instruct confundraisees today. i thank mr. maloney and mr. shuster. hopefully we can put america's infrastructure investments back on the right track. we need bipartisanship, which will involve earmarks and making transportation bills like they used to be with mr. shuster's father was there and like mr. shuster would like to make them. if we can take mr. shuster and clone him, we could work together and have a greater america and more jobs and greater country. thank you very much. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york continues -- reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve -- first i inquire do you have other speakers?

mr. maloney: i'm prepared to close. mr. shuster: i'll finish mine. again, we expect to continue to work with the 123459 on this language -- senate on this language, it saves lives, protects communities. we accept the motion to instruct. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. maloney: madam speaker, i'd like to thank the chairman, mr. shuster. as frustrating as washington can be for many of us new to the congress, we can actually get results, make a difference by conferencing the water resources reform and development act. we have the opportunity for congress to setaside politics and bart zahnship to got something done for the american people. wrrda is a critical investment in our nation's aging infrastructure and creates jobs, threatens our local economy, and keeps families all across the country safe. we can make it even better by ensuring every state and community has the resources to conduct safety inspections and

to create emergency action plans. again there are 14,000 high hazard dams in this country. 60% of which, only 60% of which have an emergency action plan. this program makes sense, and don't take it from me, you can take it from the folks in new york where one of these high hazard dams exists. after experiencing nearly a foot of rain in 24 hours, many families were forced to he evacuate for fear of potential of series of dam failures and catastrophic flooding. war wick had a plan in place and conducted a safe evacuation. dams like those in war wick rely on the national dam safety program to enhance the safety of their dams by hiring staff to conduct inspections, to purchase equipment, and develop emergency action plans for dam safety. these plans save lives and prevent catastrophe. investing in the national dam safety program provides our communities with the resources they need to protect our families and our economy by conducting safety inspections and creating plans.

simply put a stitch in time saves nine. nowhere is that more true than here. i hope we can join together in a bipartisan way to support communities all across america by passing this motion to make the final version of this bill even better. thank you, madam speaker. the i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to instruct. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. maloney: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: pursuant to house resolution 403, i call up h.r. 2655, the lawsuit abuse reduction act of 2013, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 181, h.r. 2655, a bill to amend rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure to improve attorney accountability and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 403, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and include remarks extraneous material on h.r. 2655 currently under consideration.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i recognize myself for such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for such time as he may consume. madam speaker, h.r. 2655, the lawsuit abuse reduction act, would restore mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits filed in federal court. many americans may not realize it, but today under what is called rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure, there is no requirement that those who file frivolous lawsuits pay for the unjustified legal costs they impose on their victims. as a result, the current rule 11 goes largely unenforced when there is no guarantee of compensation, the victims of frivolous lawsuits have little incentive to spend even more money to pursue additional litigation to have the case declared frivolous. h.r. 2655 would finally provide

light at the end of the tunnel for the victims of frivolous lawsuits by requiring sanctions against those who file them. sanctions that include paying their victims the full cost of their reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of the rule 11 violation including attorneys fees. the bill also strikes the current provision in rule 11 that allows lawyers to avoid sanctions by making frivolous claims and demands by simply withdrawing them within 21 days. this change eliminates the free pass lawyers now have to file frivolous lawsuits in federal court. to be clear, under rule 11 a lawsuit is frivolous if it is presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation if it is not warranted by existing law or if the factual contentions have no evidencery -- evidentiary support. in other words, a lawsuit will only be found frivolous if it

has no basis in law or fact. yet the current lack of mandatory sanctions leads to the regular filing of lawsuits that are clearly baseless. for example, in just the last year a small business owner was sued for violations of federal regulations in a parking lot that he doesn't own or lease. a woman had her car repossessed and filed a $5 million federal lawsuit with a half tank of gas she had left in the car. a high school teacher sued a school district claiming it discriminated against her because she has aphobia, a fear of young children. her case was dismissed by the equal employment opportunity commission, but that didn't prevent her from filing a federal lawsuit. these real yet absurd cases have real life consequences for their victims who have to shell out thousands of dollars just to respond to frivolous pleadings,

endure sleepless nights, and spend time away from their family, work, and customers. let's not forget that the victims of frivolous lawsuits are real vick tums. do any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that judges should have the discretion to deny damage awards to victims of legal wrongs proved in court? if not, why should judges have the scrgs to deny damage awards to victims of frivolous lawsuits to prove in court that the case against them was frivolous? it is difficult to see how a vote against the bill before us today could be interpreted as anything other than a denial of victims of frismous lawsuits are indeed real victims. they are real victims and they deserve compensation when they claim the frivolousness. the victims of lawsuit abuse are not just those who are actually sued. rather, we all suffer under a system in which innocent americans everywhere live under

the constant fear of a potentially bankrupting frivolous lawsuit. as the former chairman of the home depot company has written, an unpredictable legal system casts a shadow over every plan and investment. it is devastating for startups, the cost of even one ill-timed abusive lawsuit can bankrupt a growing company and cost hundreds of jobs. the prevalence of frivolous lawsuits is reflected in the absurd warning labels companies must place on their products to limit their liability. a five-inch brass fishing lure with three hooks is labeled "harmful if swallowed." a vanishing fabric marker with disappearing ink warns it should not be used as a writing instrument for signing checks or any legal documents. a label on a scooter says, warning, this product moves when used. a household iron contains a

warning "never iron clothes while they are being worn." and a cardboard -- car sun shield that keeps sun off the dashboard warns, "do not drive with sunshade up." potential for frivolous lawsuits are behind all these absurd warning labels which, while humorous in their own way, serve as a warning to us about what the world will increasingly look like if we don't make the rules more fair. today absurd lawsuits can sometimes bring sanctions against those who filed them. but even when they do, the current rules result in far too little compensation for the victims of the frivolous lawsuit. in his 2011 state of the union address, president obama said, and quote, i'm willing to look at other ideas to rein in frivolous lawsuits. i hope the president has time to read this one-page bill and lend his support to a proposal that

would significantly reduce the burden of frivolous litigation on innocent americans. and i thank the former chairman of the house judiciary committee, congressman lamar smith, for introducing this simple, commonsense legislation that would do so much to prevent lawsuit abuse and restore americans' confidence in the legal system and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i rise in , and i n to h.r. 2655 suggest that what we're doing here this afternoon will turn the clock back to a time when federal rules of civil procedure

discourage civil rights cases, limit judicial discretion and permit satellite litigation to run wild. i repeat, we may turn the clock back to a time when the rules of civil procedure discouraged civil rights cases, limited judicial discretion and permitted satellite litigation to run wild. and here's how it accomplishes it. undoing the 19993 -- 1993 amendments to rule 11 of the federal civil procedure. by, one, restricting judicial discretion, two, requiring mandatory sanctions for even unintentional violations, and, three, eliminating the current

safe harbor provision which has been so beneficial to our federal court system. and so to put it as simply as have a , h.r. 2655 will disastrous impact on the administration of justice. now, how would this chill egitimate civil rights litigation? civil rights cases often concern novel issues which made them particularly susceptible to rule 1 before the 1993 amendment. i hope all the members of this body appreciate how significant

this is and the important history that was made during that earlier period of time. for example, 1991 federal judicial center study found that the ins -- incidents of rule 11 motions were higher in civil cases -- civil rights cases than in some other types of cases. another study showed that while civil rights cases comprised about 11% of federal cases filed , more than 22% of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases. this legislation will substantially increase the amount, the cost and intensity of civil litigation and create more grounds for unnecessary delay in harassment in the

courtroom. experts in civil procedure are virtually unanimous on this point. by allowing rule 11 to be used as a tool to impose court costs on the other side, the 1983 version spawn a virtual cottage industry of rule 11 litigation. each party had a financial incentive to tie up the other in rule 11 proceedings. professor theodore eisenberg of cornell university has demonstrated that roughly 1/3 of all federal lawsuits were burdened by this, quote, satellite litigation, unquote. during the period when this prior version of the rule was in effect, and attorneys had a

double duty, he argued, one to try the case and the other to try the opposing counsel. in recognition of these problems, the judicial conference amended the rule in 993 to its present form. we so we should realize that have the support and the appreciation -- and have appreciated the constructive assistance of many of these organizations. the american bar association, the alliance for justice, the consumer federation of america, the national consumer law center, the national consumers league, public citizens, united states public interest research group, among others. and so in addition to

legislation opposed by the judicial conference of the united states, the principal policymaking body for the judicial branch, charged with proposing amendments to the federal rules of civil procedure under careful, deliberate process outlined in the rules enabling act. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, the chairman of the subcommittee on constitution and civil justice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. franks: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the chairman. i also want to express my appreciation to chairman goodlatte and chairman smith for both introducing and bringing forth this simple but important and much-needed legislation.

madam speaker, in order to stop lawsuit abuse, promote jobs in the economy and restore basic fairness to our civil justice system, rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure must be amended. rule 11 provides for one of the most basic requirements for litigation in federal court. that papers filed with a federal district court must be based on both the facts and the law. in other words, rule 11 imposes on attorneys the very modest obligation to undertake a reasonable investigation of the facts in the law underlying a claim before filing it. this is a simple requirement, madam speaker. but one that both sides to a lawsuit must abide by if we are to have a properly functioning federal court system. unfortunately the current version of rule 11 permits attorneys to file a lawsuit first and then try to back up their claims with law and the facts later. this is because under the current rules, failure to comply

with rule 11 does not necessarily result in imposition of sanctions. the fact that litigants can violate rule 11 without penalty significantly reduces the deterrent effect of rule 11, which harms the integrity of the federal courts and leads to both plaintiffs and defendants being forced to respond to frivolous claims and arguments. the lawsuit abuse reduction act corrects this flaw, madam speaker, by requiring that federal district court judges impose sanctions when rule 11 is violated. mandatory sanctions will more strongly discourage litigants from knowingly making frivolous claims in federal court. it will also relieve litigants from the financial burden of having to responds to frivolous claims. as the legislation requires those who violate rule 11 to reimburse the opposing party for reasonable expenses incurred as a direct result of that violation. additionally the legislation eliminates rule 11's 21-day safe

harbor, which currently gives litigants a free pass to make frivolous claims so long as they withdraw those claims if the opposing side objects. according to the federal rules of civil procedure, the goal of the rules is to ensure that every action and proceeding in federal court be determined in a, quote, just, speedy and inexpensive, unquote, manner. mr. speaker, madam speaker, i believe that this goal is best served through mandatory sanctions for violating this simple requirement of rule 11, that every filing be based on both the law and the facts. so i would just urge my colleagues to support the lawsuit abuse reduction act, to restore mandatory sanctions to rule 11, and with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am pleased now to yield to a senior member of the house judiciary committee, the distinguished

gentleman from new york, jerry nadler, for as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 2655, the so-called lawsuit abuse reduction act. unfortunately rather than reduce abusive litigation, this bill will have just the opposite effect. we don't need to speculate about the disastrous effect of this legislation, because we know from experience what a fiasco it will be. the rule this litigation would restore was in effect from 1983 to 1993. it was a disaster. after a decade with this rule, the judicial conference, the rulemaking body for the federal judiciary, rightly rejected it in favor of the rule we have today. in fact, this legislation goes even beyond the text of the 1983 rule, broadening the flawed mandatory sanctions even further. worse still, the judiciary committee has not made even the pretense of considering this very radical change in civil

procedure with any care. in fact, no hearings have been held on this legislation in this congress. the process or lack of it demonstrates the wisdom of the rules enabling act in which congress gave the judicial conference the responsibility for reviewing court rules and proposing changes. they have done this job admirably, spending years of careful study to existing rules, to how they are functioning and the implications of any proposed changes. while the sponsor has expressed a desire to limit unnecessary litigation, the experience with the old rule 11, which this bill would restore, was the exact opposite. rule 11 litigation became a routine part of civil litigation, infecting 1/3 of all cases. rather than serving as a disincentive, the old rule 11 made the system more costly. in the decade followinging the 1983 amendments, which this bill would restore, there were almost 7,000 reported rules -- rule 11 cases, becoming part of approximately 1/3 of all federal

lawsuits. many civil cases -- case, 1/3, became two cases. one case on the merits and the other on dueling rule 11 complaints. it is rare in life that you get a controlled scientific experiment. but we had one here, from 1983 to 1993. we saw the results, they were disastrous. and only incautious people try to repeat disastrous scientific experiments. . the trade promotion on the court's resources cause the judicial conference to adopt the changes this bill would undo. a july 23, 2013 letter to chairman goodlatte and ranking member conyers, judge jeffrey sutton of the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit and chair of the committee on rules of practice and procedure, and judge david campbell of the u.s. district court for the district of arizona, chair of the advisory committee on civil rules said, i quote, experienced research and thoughtful deliberation have shown there is no need, no need

to reinstate the 1983 version of rule 11 that proves contentious and costly to litigants and diverted so much time and energy to the bar and bench. doing so would add to and not improve the problems and delay we are working to address. we urge you on behalf of the rules committee to not adopt the propossed legislation amending rule 11. i might add that in committee the majority quoted a survey of judges from 1983 -- 1993 saying that we shouldn't change the rules then. today the judges very much are very glad we changed the rule because they have lived under both systems. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, in addition to all these rules about -- all these considerations of cost, the bill would hinder the evolution of the common law. one way the common law evolves is by people making claims in court. especially in civil rights cases. civil rights cases often

involved in argument for the extension, modification, or reverse a.f.l. existing law or the establishment of a new law. often relied upon novel legal theories particularly susceptible to someone claiming that they are abusive or frivolous. had the provisions of this bill been in place at the time, they could have discouraged a number of landmark civil rights cases, including brown vs. board of education of topeka, and they could prevent new case from ever being considered. perhaps that is why all the civil rights groups, all the consumer rights groups oppose this bill. madam speaker, the courts have ample authority to sanction conduct that undermines the integrity of our legal system, but this legislation is the wrong solution in search of a problem. by taking us back to a time when rule 11 actually promoted routine, costly, and unnecessary litigation, this bill is a cure worse than the disease. we know what this rule does and the court's rightly rejected it 20 years ago. we should benefit from that experience, not repeat the scientific experiment, and

reject this legislation. i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield five minutes to the former chairman of the house judiciary committee and the chief sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: madam speaker, i want to thank chairman goodlatte for yielding me time and for also bringing the bill to the house floor today. and for all of his hard work on this legislation. the lawsuit abuse reduction act, is only 1 1/2 pages long, but it would prevent the filing of hundreds of thousands of pages of frivolous lawsuits in federal courts. for example, in recent years frivolous lawsuits have been filed against the weather channel for failing to accurately predict storms, against television shows people claimed were too scary, and against fast food companies

because inactive children gain weight. frivolous lawsuits have become too common in our society. lawyers who are bringing these cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose under current rules, which permit plaintiffs lawyers to file frivolous suits no matter how absurd the claims with no penalty whatsoever. meanwhile defendants are faced with years of litigation and substantial attorneys fees. these cases and many like them have wrongly cost innocent individuals and business owners their reputations and their hard-earnedle toars. according to the research firm, towers parens, the annual direct cost of american tort litigation ,ow exceeds $260 billion a year over $850 per person in america. before 1993, it was mandatory for judges to impose sanctions such as orders to pay for the other side's legal expenses when lawyers filed frivolous lawsuits. then the civil rules advisory

committee an abzur branch of the courts made penalties officialal. this needs to be reversed by congress. as chairman goodlatte noted, even president obama has expressed a willingness to limit frivolous lawsuits. if the president is serious about stopping these meritless claims, he will support mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits to avoid making frivolous promises. lara requires lawyers who filed frivolous lawsuits to pay the attorneys fees and court costs of innocent defendants. further it expressly provides that no changes, quote, shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses, or remedies under federal, state, or local laws, including civil rights laws, or under the constitution of the united states, end quote. so civil rights law would not be affected in any way by lara. opponents often argue that reinstating mandatory sanctions for frivolous lawsuits impede

judicial discretion, but this is not true. under lara judges retain discretion to determine whether or not a claim is frivolous. if a judge determines at their discretion that a claim is frivolous they must award sanctions. this ensures victims of frivolous lawsuits obtain compensation. but the decision to find a claim frivolous remains with the judge. it applies to both plaintiffs and defendants. it applies to cases brought by individuals as well as businesses, including businesses claims filed to harass competitors and illicitly gain market share. the american people are looking for solutions to obvious problems with lawsuit abuse. lara restores accountability to our legal system by reinstating mandatory sanctions for attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits. though it will not stop all lawsuit abuse, lara encourages attorneys to think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit.

i thank chairman goodlatte again for bringing this much needed legislation to the house floor, and i ask my colleagues to oppose frivolous lawsuits and want to protect hardworking americans from false claims to support the lawsuit abuse reduction act. madam speaker, i want it make one other point, this goes to the earlier discussion we just had about judicial surveys. 751 federal judges responded to the 1990 survey in which they overwhelmingly supported a rule 11 with mandatory sanctions. in the 2005 survey, only 278 judges respond, and over half of the judges who responded to the 2005 survey had no experience whatsoever under the stronger rule 11, because they were appointed to the bench after 1992. so the 2005 survey tells us very little about how judges comparatively view the stronger versus the weaker rule 11.

madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize and yield to the senior active member of the house judiciary committee from houston, texas, ms. sheila jackson lee, as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman for his outstanding leadership of this committee. and let me thank the manager as well and i know -- thank the speaker for her courtesies, recognizing this is an important initiative. so using the time to be able to speak to the members is very important, and i'm glad to have been given the courtesy of being yielded as much time. and i will use it efficiently

for this particular legislation. let me indicate that this is another gift to large, prosperous, and threatening entities against a single plaintiff. the plaintiff who secures a lawyer, who is attempting to create the scales of justice and to balance, if you will, the needs of that individual plaintiff, those small plaintiffs, those collective plaintiffs who are seeking justice. it is a fact that the threat of lawsuits is not a concern of small businesses as has been represented. a 2008 study indicated by the national federation of independent businesses, the biggest threat facing them, small businesses, was other was not costs and --

cost and frequency of lawsuits. that was number 65. they need other issues that we should be concerned about. a fact that judges support the current version of the rule. rule 11 is just one of many tools that judges use. it is not the only tool to be able to be responsive to someone who may be abusing the system. but remember we are here to perpetuate justice, and justice has scales. and in many instances that scale is tipped toward the one with the most money, the deepest pockets, the longest time to wear you out as a plaintiff, and let me refresh my colleagues' minds and understanding of the federal system, that tort cases are a very small percentage of that civil docket. so this is not an instance, many of these cases are filed in the state court. these personal injury cases, these cases dealing with large damages because people have been injured because of bad products

and other matters. and so here we have a bill looking for a problem. in actuality, lara will increase not decrease you litigation. you can see the spiking that occurred. the lawsuit abuse reduction would return rule 11 to the 1993 version. 1983, excuse me, 1983 version. litigation's fight after the 1983 amendment to the rule 11. from 1982 to the peak in 1991, satellite litigation i creased by more than 10,000%. here we go with a gift to those who are truly litigious. just as we have been on the floor of the house pounding the affordable care act because cancellation letters have been sent, they haven't been sent by republicans, they haven't been sent by democrats. they haven't been sent by health and human services, they haven't been sent by people who are committed to making sure every

american has health insurance. they have been sent by fat cat insurance companies who are sending cancellation letters. here we go again, the scale of justice imbalanced. again the same problem, the mother, single parent, the family waiting to get on the affordable care act in the normal course of the process, they get cancellation letter. what an unnecessary act. that letter could have been we are modifying your insurance. there goes the big guys again. you haven't heard one single sound coming out of the mouths of insurance companies to answer the question why did they send the letters? and here we are on the floor of the house making it even worse. meaking it even worse. under the -- making it even worse. under the lara regime and mandatory sanctions and no opportunity to correct mistakes, the parties to a lawsuit have every incentive to file rule 11 complaints and seek court costs

and legal fees and defend against such actions to the bitter end. this is a dynamic that should not happen. we should allow a pullback, a correction, all we are doing is just throwing them over the cliff and under the bus. the changes would create a disincentive to abandon a pleading or claim it lacked merit. as i indicated, we have seen this time since 1983 spike. i have another statistic, rule 11 takes a spike to 7,000 during the decade following the 1983 rule. and so when a lawyer wants to do right with his client, the little guy, the little guy, then of course they are blocked from solving the problems. they use horror stories like demand letters where a lawyer

writes a letter demanding compensation in order to get a potential defendant to settle without having to file suit. that's not covered by rule 11. and as far as i know that is not an illegal procedure to engage in discussion to be able to resolve the matter before going to a costly lawsuit. again, that's the little guy's tool. so you're going to beat up on the little guy. the construction worker that falls because of violations of osha rules. or the person that works in a chicken plant who has carple syndrome because there were no appropriate rest times for them to get off of the line. you're going to make the argument that this is right for justice. well, let me just say this, madam speaker, this graph speaks for itself. this will add an extra burden of

cost to those who are trying to find a way for lady justice's scales to be balanced, and my belief under the sixth amendment, the right to counsel, and many other aspects of the bill of rights, that the founding fathers believed that justice should be rendered regardless of your race, color, our creed, regardless of whether you were an indentured servant, whether or not you came in pill grim's pride or some other manner, rule 11 completely disputes that concept of justice . i am appalled that we are here at this point today and it equates to the fat cat insurance companies who have decided to send out letters when they well knew that this was a process that would work ongoing in their modification that could be noted

to those recipients that their insurance was not going away, it was only going to be made better. i'd like to make the justice system better. i thank the gentleman for his time. i'd like to make sure that the little guy has an opportunity to walk into any court of the united states of america, mr. conyers, and stand tall and feel that the judge, no matter what side his pocketbook is, will give him as much credence and respect as the big guys coming in with millions, maybe billions, to make sure he does not or she does not win justice in the court. . today i'd ask our colleagues to vote for fairness, for lady justice and to vote against this initiative and this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i did not think that when i came wn here today to debate this one-page bill for lawsuit abuse reduction act that it would somehow get linked with more han the 2,000-page monstrosity popularily known or unpopularily known as obamacare and told that somehow the promise that was made over and over and over again that if you like the health insurance you have, you can keep it, was not the fault of the legislation itself and the people making that promise, but was rather the fault of the insurance companies who have to deal with this more than 2,000-page monstrosity. and the more than 20,000 pages of regulations that have been written and have to rewrite virtually every insurance policy for health care in america because of the mandates and the regulations that are in that

legislation and somehow the more than four million americans, almost all of whom are the little guys, as i've just heard referenced, are somehow -- i will not yield until i'm finished with my remarks -- that somehow they are -- that this is the fault of the insurance companies who are doing what they have been required to do under the law. and that is to make changes in the law that necessitates changing all of their policies, that necessitates making sure that things that are mandated by the law are included in their coverage, whether the people who had the policies that they liked could afford these new changes or not. so many, many americans are forced by this legislation to seek new health insurance, in some case far more expensive, and they can't afford it. but somehow that's made out to be the fault of the insurance companies, not the people who wrote the law, voted for the law

and then are implementing the law in spite of promises that were made that cannot be kept, not by insurance companies who are abiding by the law, but by others. now, to compare that to this legislation, which is a one-page modest bill, to assure that people who are the victims of frivolous lawsuits and fraudulent lawsuits cannot have justice in our federal judicial system i think is just plain wrong. and the chart that has just been displayed regarding rule 11 filings during the 1983 to 1993 period, when there was an increase in the number of hearings related to rule 11, that's a spike for justice, that is a spike for the increased opportunity for people who have been subjected to some of the most outrageous lawsuits that were described by the gentleman from texas, that were described in my opening remarks, and that

is their opportunity to seek real justice. and that's what this bill is all about. reinstating a spike for justice for the little guy, for the small business person, the individual who finds themselves subject to a lawsuit under some of the most ridiculous circumstances you can imagine and saying, you know what, my life has been turned upside down by this lawsuit, i'm not getting sleep at night, i'm having to spend thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys, i'm having to do things to change the way i live my life and it's all because of something that was frivolous or fraudulent and now i'm seeking to have some redress, some redress for that wrong that was done. that's the very basic principle of the american jurisprudence system, that people, when they're harmed, have the right to go to court and seek redress of their grievances and that's exactly what this provision in

this law does under rule 11. it says that if the courts find that the lawsuit is frivolous, then there is a mandatory requirement that the individual who is the victim of that frivolous lawsuit should recover losses. that is indeed what this legislation is all about and i am proud to support it and i'm happy to yield to the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: the gentleman is very kind to yield and very briefly let me say it's about policy and process. the gentleman knows that most of america is very happy about the changes in the affordable care act to get them out of the junk insurance policy that they have had. mr. goodlatte: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. if that were the case, then i don't think the president would have unilaterally delayed the one-year -- for one year the employer mandate, where the vast majority of americans -- imagine if this bill had taken effect as originally planned and all of the employers in america looking

at their insurance policies for their employees were also having to tell their employees that they could no longer afford to provide insurance or they're going to provide a different plan where the employee had to pay more money or the employee was being put into the exchanges, all of those things would be significant, serious problems. but we digress from the importance of this legislation right here, which is something that we can join together in a bipartisan way to see that we have justice in our judicial system when people are unfairly sued, unfairly subject to frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from texas an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. let me be very clear. i am -- want to say to the

gentleman from virginia that i would venture to say that those attacks on frivolous lawsuits are the big guys against the little guys, who had very legitimate and good intentions. it may be their resources were limited and so they have to be subjected to a rule 11 on a perfectly legitimate litigation to be called frivolous. the other point that i was making is that there's something between process and policy. i will stand again to say that the policy of making better health plans and better and healthier americans is supported by all. the process that i challenge is that the big insurance companies decided to use the process of cancellation letters. not letters that said modify. they decided to use their big authority to be able to undermine a policy of lifting the boats of all americans for good health. that's what i see rule 11 as. i see that as undermining the basic scales of justice. it says, to get back money for

frivolous lawsuits. well, the frivolous lawsuits may be on one individual or a group of small individuals who feel that they have been harmed. they may have lost, they may be in the midst of pleadings, but they don't have the resources to file a rule 11. and so what happens is those who want to be punitive will use the rule 11. i think a judge can make the determinations under the present system and so the spiking that we're talking about is a spiking of rule 11 filings. that's more litigation. that's more litigation. that's what we're suggesting that we don't want. and this response and respect that the president and others are giving, all of us want to give respect to the mishap that has been created by the insurance companies. and so, fine, the president is giving respect to the constituents because his bottom line is to make sure all uninsured americans, like the six million in the state of texas, get the opportunity to be insured. let me thank the gentleman for

the time and i yield back. i believe that we're going down the wrong paggets for rule 11 and i thank the gentleman -- path for rule 11 and i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan continues to reserve. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, it's my pleasure now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. matthew cartwright, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for four minutes. mr. cartwright: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i come here as a freshman in this congress, i come from northeastern pennsylvania. my first time involved in the political theater and i tell you, madam speaker, that i have applied my entire adult life in

the civil courts. i have handled all manner of civil cases on behalf defendants, on behalf of plaintiffs, on behalf of people, on behalf of companies. i've seen all the whole spectrum of civil litigation and i've been doing that both before and after the repeal of the andatory lara provision in 1993. so i am as qualified as anybody in this chamber to speak to the merits of this so-called lawsuit abuse reduction bill. it's a bill that should fail. and i say this not just because it tends to shut the door further on consumers seeking justice in the court system of the united states, but because it also reinstates a rule that as already been seen to be

misapplied, to be misplaced, to be a bad rule. in 1993 we abandoned this rule for a reason. it wasn't because we pulled it out of thin air, the idea to abandon this mandatory sanctions under rule 11 rule. it's because of the experience. the gentlelady from texas held up the chart. you saw the spiking in rule 11 filings. that wasn't because people were out diligently cleaning up the mess in civil courts. it's because they were encouraged to make those filings, because of the mandatory nature of the rule. they felt like their clients expected them to file for rule 11 if they won a motion or if they won a case and it led to an enormous increase in unnecessary, what we call satellite litigation. and it was the federal judges who complained at the judicial conference, it went to the supreme court, and congress ultimately decided, and --

decided in its wisdom to abrogate that rule and abandoned it. because it puts all of this wasteful litigation -- because of all this wasteful litigation that was going on. we had a judge outside of philadelphia who saw so much of it he added a nickname to this rule 11 litigation that people felt compelled to file, he called it zombie litigation. he called it zombie litigation. and he was enormously relieved when in 1993 this congress did away with it. current law allows judges to punish frivolous filings. and on occasion frivolous things happen in court. and the judges don't like them and they have the power to punish them. and it is within their discretion that they do that. we like discretion to be vested in federal judges. we're careful about selecting federal judges. we vet federal judges. we interview federal judges. we actually confirm them here on capitol hill to make sure that

they have sound discretion and good sense. and it is best left to the sound discretion and good sense of federal judges to handle this situation when someone goes overboard with the filing. this is us here now trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. the national center for state courts, make no mistake,er to the cases constitute -- no mistake, tort cases constitute 5% of filings in civil court. it's debt collection, it's breach of contracts cases that take up 70%. from 1999 to 2008 tort case filings in state courts in the united states dropped 25%. dropped. and this is all after the be a row gation of the mandatory rule -- abrogation of the mandatory rule 11 rule. so what this bill is really after is simply to make people afraid to go to court. what this bill is really after

is to make people afraid to go to court, to assert their rights, to assert their voting rights. i'm almost finished. to assert their voting rights, to assert their workplace safety rights, to assert the rights guaranteed them under the united states constitution. this bill makes them afraid to go to court to assert their rights and that's why i urge my fellow members, madam speaker, to vote against this bill. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: would the gentleman yield? what other source of legal claims should a victim be able to prove in court but denied damages by the judge? mr. cartwright: i'm not sure what the gentleman is referring to. mr. goodlatte: you're in court. you have a frivolous lawsuit. the court finds it's a friffle -- frivolous lawsuit. you prove you're the victim of that legal claim and you prove

it in court, and yet you can be denied damages by the judge. what other legal remedy -- what other legal claim would the gentleman cite other than frivolous lawsuits filed by -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte: where that would be the case? mr. cartwright: may i respond? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. if the gentleman wishes to respond he may respond. . cartwright: mr. speaker -- mr. good klatt: i yield myself one minute and be happy to yield to respond. mr. cartwright: thank you. the answer is this we don't have idiots as federal judges in this country. if a federal judge sees a situation where somebody is really acting egregiously, really abusing the system, really filing a frivolous case, then that federal judge just about uniformly will sanction the guilty party. we see that over an over an over. what we are doing here is imposing a cookie cutter

one-size-fits-all remedy that the judges don't like. it adds to increased litigation, and it's unnecessary and expensive litigation. i yield back. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for his comment and i would just point out that while i practiced law during the time that the mandatory sanctions were in place, in federal court, and found that it was a very good environment to to so, i was then elected to congress and found out that low an behold a small panel of judges changed that rule without looking at the evidence of a survey of federal judges where 751 federal judges found that an overwhelming majority -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. r. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield my seven such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. federal judges found an overwhelming majority of federal judges believed based on their experience under both a weaker

and stronger rule 11 that a stronger rule 11 did not impede the development of the law 95%. the benefits of the route outweight any judicial requirement of judicial time. 71.9%. the stronger version of rule 11 had a positive effect on litigation in the federal court. 81%. and the rule should be retained in its then current form. what we are attempting to reinstate into the law, 80.4% supported retaining the then current mandatory sanctions under the law. mr. speaker, this is about seeking real justice. and the fact of the matter is that just like a judge could not deny well-founded damages in a lawsuit brought by an individual under a valid legal claim of any other kind, they should not be able to have the discretion to deny any damages when a frivolous lawsuit is proven and the expenses of having to

undertake the defense of that frivolous lawsuit are made. and yet time after time after time today either people do not even bother to do it any more because of the low, low, low record of granting damages in findings of frivolous lawsuit since it was made discretionary, and the mandatory provision should be reinstate food law. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize a very effective member of the house judiciary committee, the gentleman from florida, ted deutsch, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. deutch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend, mr. conyers. mr. speaker, the lawsuit abuse reduction act is, make no mistake, little more than a g.o.p. effort to turn back the clock on civil rights, on consumer protection, and on justice in america. i urge my colleagues to vote

against it. to most people what this bill is sounds harmless. it reinstates the 1983 slergs of rule -- version of rule 11 in our federal civil procedure. the legislation is full of legal jargon and obscure technical language, but the american people still need to know why it is the majority wants to go back to 1983 so badly. they want to reinstate the 1983 rule for the very reason it was taken away in the first place. it unfairly disadvantaged consumers, employees, and other ordinary americans that tried to take on big corporations in our court system. the lawsuit abuse reduction act doesn't stop frivolous lawsuits. it only makes it easier for corporations to file frivolous lawsuits for the soul purpose of delaying the legal process and driving up the cost of litigation. these tactics aim to make the price of justice too expensive for ordinary americans. especially in cases involving consumer and civil rights. you don't have to take my word for it.

studies have shown that civil rights and discrimination cases made up just 11.4% of the federal court docket, but 22% of the cases tea railed by this rule. history -- derailed by this rule. history has shown us the 1983 version will further disadvantage everyday people with claims against corporations with big pockets. mr. speaker, the current rule was velved by a judicial panel and embraced by judges across the country. they are the ones who hear the cases. they are the ones who receive and consider the unique facts in each case. they are the ones who are in the position to make the decision whether the landmark civil rights and consumer rights cases of our time should go forward in our legal process, not the united states house of representatives. i ask my colleagues, stand up for everyday americans' access to justice. vote no on this bad bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. we are ready to

lose, mr. speaker. is mr. goodlatte -- chairman goodlatte, are you ready to close? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i have only myself as the remaining speaker. we would be prepared to close. mr. conyers: thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. conyers: ladies and ntlemen, as we see now the lawsuit abuse reduction act will turn back the clock to a time when the federal rules of civil procedure discouraged civil rights cases. and permitted satellite litigation to run wild. want to point out in closing that this is now the second day

this week that the house is considering legislation aimed at solving a nonexistent problem. that has little or no chance of seeing the light of day in the other body. and is solely aimed at limiting access to justice for victims of egregious harms. just as i asked yesterday, who actually supports this legislation? and why are we putting their interest ahead of victims? and why are we engaged in this charade when there are real problems facing our nation that our constituents are still waiting for us to address? with just 13 legislative days left this year, we still haven't considered immigration reform. we haven't passed a budget. we haven't considered a single piece of legislation that will create jobs and put america back

to work. so, really, whose interest is this house concerned with today? i urge my colleagues oppose this legislation. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yield back his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1/2 minutes. mr. goodlatte: i will not use all of that 8 1/2 minutes. mr. speaker, i believe my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the judiciary committee, mr. conyers, raised the important issue of civil rights. it is absolutely important and i share his concern that individuals who believe that their civil rights have been infringed in any way have the opportunity to bring actions in federal court as long as those actions are not frivolous or based upon fraud.

in fact, looking back during the time when we had mandatory sanctions from 1983 to 1993, the federal judicial center in its study found that the imposition rate of sanctions in civil rights cases was not out of line with that in any other type of case. now, we have not rested there. when the committee marked up this legislation the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, offered a bipartisan amendment which was added to the bill, at the very end. i said it was a one-page bill. i'm actually slightly mistaken it's a one and a third page bill, and the third page added reads this way, rule of construction, nothing in this act or an amendment made by this act shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims,

defenses, or remedies under federal, state, or local laws, including civil rights laws or under the constitution of the united states. so this measure is carefully crafted to make sure that we are not harming people's right to seek legitimate redress of grievances in our courts. what it is designed to do is to eliminate frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits. and from the evidence of the survey of federal judges, who worked for 10 years under the rule that we would instate again with the passage of this legislation, the overwhelming majority have said they would not change the rule. it's unfortunate that a small committee chose to move forward to make that change, notwithstanding. and i would add, too, that those who claim that this is not about the little guy are overlooking the fact that small businesses are affected by frivolous lawsuits all the time of the the national federation of

independent business, which bills itself as the voice of small business, and which represents hundreds of thousands of small businesses all across america, endorses this legislation. in fact, they wrote to us and said, 84% of national federation of independent business members agree that attorneys should face mandatory sanctions if they bring forth a frivolous lawsuit. the nfib urges you to support final passage of h.r. 2655 and will consider it an nfib key vote in the 113th congress. in terms of the little guy, both the small businessperson and the individual -- business person, and the individual, this legislation is designed to protect individuals against frivolous or fraudulent lawsuits. and as i pointed out in my dialogue with another member a little while ago, i don't believe anybody can come forward nd give me any other example

where a legal claim is validly brought in court and the victim is able to prove that wrong was perpetrated and prove there are damages resulting from that wrong, and yet be denied those damages by the judge. i challenge anybody to come forward and show me that. so why, if you have a process that says, under rule 11, which it did say at one time and would say again with the passage of this legislation, that you have a right to a process to show and establish that a lawsuit is frivolous, why after you have done that wouldn't it be mandatory that the process take one step further and assess the appropriate amount of damages that would be due and owing that victim of that abusive lawsuit that suffers in all the same ways that other people suffer when they are the victim of abusive actions of other kinds that result in actions being

brought in court? i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 403, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure to improve attorney accountability and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. lewis: i'm opposed to h.r. 2655. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. lewis of georgia moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2655 to the committee on judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, add, at the end of the bill, the following, section 3, protecting civil

rights and preventing scramings. this act and the amendments made by this act shall not apply in the case of any action brought under, one, civil rights laws including any case alleges discrimination based on sex, race, aiming, or other forms of discrimination or, two, the constitution. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia recognized for five minutes in for spore of his motion. mr. lewis: it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. my motion is similar to an amendment offered by my good friend, ranking member conyers, during the committee markup. it simply excludes civil rights cases from this act. my amendment makes it crystal clear that discrimination based

on sex, race, age or other forms of discrimination will not be subjected to lengthy expensive sanctions. people should have a right to seek redress, petition the courts to act to be able to take legal action based on discrimination because of age, race, color, gender, sexual orientation. it is not frivolous or silly. they are exercising their sacred right to work to make our union stronger and better for generations to come. mr. speaker, i'm not sure that my friends and colleagues in this body fully understand the importance of my amendment. civil rights lawsuits are unique because they push the

judiciary to review, consider and update our nation's commitment, our constitutional duty to respect their dignity and the worth of every human being. these cases inspire our judicial system to explore and develop new legal theories and standards. and there is no doubt that legislation, like h.r. 2655, would have slowed down many historic legal successes of the 20th century. civil rights landmarks like broun vs. board of education would have taken another 10 years -- brown vs. board of education would have taken another 10 years. rights for marriage could have been debated for no telling how long. blacks and whites would not ave been free to marr why.

same-sex -- been free to marry. same-sex couples would not have been able to mary. -- been able to marry. civil rights legal progress would have been even slowed if this act was the law of the land 60, 50 or even 20 years ago. our judicial system with review makes our history, our proimpress, our commitment to justice a model for nations around the world. this effort has been tried already. it does not work, and my amendment corrects the greatest injustice of this bill. i urge all of my colleagues to support my commonsense changes to the seriously flawed

legislation. this amendment is the right thing to do, the fair thing to do. it is the just thing to do. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i seek time in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this motion because the base bill makes sanctions for frivolous -- filing frivolous lawsuits in federal court mandatory. under rule 11, the lawsuit is frivolous if it is presented for any proper -- improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation. if it is not warranted by existing law or if the factual contentions have no evidentiary support, in other words, a lawsuit will not -- will only be found frivolous if it has no

basis in law or fact. as soon as the judge finds that any claim of any kind is founded in law or fact, then no claim for frivolous -- for damages because of frivolous lawsuit would lie. who here thinks that lawyers should be able to avoid any penalty when the lawsuit they file is found by a federal judge to have been simply filed to harass, to cause unnecessary delay or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation or when the federal judge finds that the lawsuit is not warranted by existing law or to have no evidentiary support? if you think lawyers should be able to get off scot-free when they file those sorts of frivolous lawsuits, vote for this motion to recommit. but if you agree with me that the victims of frivolous lawsuits are real victims and that they have to shell out thousands of dollars, endure sleepless nights and spend time away from their family, work and customers just to respond

to frivolous pleadings, then you must oppose this motion to recommit. when "businessweek" wrote an extensive article on what the most effective legal reforms would be, it stated what's needed are penalties that sting. as "businessweek" recommended, give judges stronger tools to punish ren gauge lawyers. lawyers. renegade before that, there were fines or orders to pay for the other side's legal expenses on lawyers who filed frivolous lawsuits. then, the civil rules advisory committee, an obscure branch of the court, made penalties optional. this needs to be reversed by congress. h.r. 2655, the lawsuit abuse reduction act, would do just that. now, the specific language of the motion to recommit means hat it literally immunizes for sanctions frivolous civil rights claims that that doesn't

further civil rights. that sets it back because the only claims that sanctions can be issued on would be claims for which there is no basis in law or fact. that does not advance the cause. but i would add that the language in the motion to recommit adds -- shall not apply in the case of any action brought under, one, civil rights laws, and, two, the constitution. that second provision, the constitution, means that the motion to recommit covers every single lawsuit brought in any united states court in the land and any federal court, and so it goes well beyond what is the stated intent of the motion to recommit. a better way to look at this is federal t what the

judicial center found in their study when they looked at the imposition of the mandatory sanctions under rule 11 that existed from 1983 to 1993, and they found that the imposition rates was not out of line of that any other type of cases. but furthermore, when this bill was drafted for this congress, very narrowly drafted bill, just one and a quarter -- 1 1/3 pages long, we added a rule of construction for specific protection for valid, legitimate civil rights lawsuits that are based in law or fact. and it says, the rule of construction, as i said earlier, nothing in this act or an amendment made by this act shall be construed to bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, defenses or remedies under federal, state or local laws, including civil rights laws or under the constitution of the

united states. that's the proper way to protect civil rights litigation. meritorious civil rights litigation founded in law or in fact. that indeed is what the legislation does, and that is why the house should reject the motion to recommit and pass the lawsuit abuse reduction act. i thank all of the members on both sides of the aisle for this vigorous debate, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is now on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, on that demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the

yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and adoption of the motion to instruct on h.r. 3080. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 197, the nays are 225, and the nays -- the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he noes have it. the gentleman from virginia. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this had 228 and the nays are -- on this vote the yeas are 228 and the nays are 195 the bill is passed. wrex the motion to reconsider is laid -- without objection, the motion to reis laid on table. the unfinished business is the motion to instruct on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3080, an act to

provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the united states, to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the motion. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 347 and the nays are 76 with one recorded as present. the motion is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved. without objection, the chair appoints the following conferees on h.r. 30le 0. -- 3080. the clerk: from the committee on

transportation and infrastructure, for consideration of the house bill and the senate amendment and modifications committed to conference, messrs. shuster, duncan of tennessee, lobiondo, graves of georgia, mrs. capito, mrs. miller of michigan, messrs. hunter, beau chon, gibbs, hanna, webster of florida, rice of south carolina, mullen, rodney davis of illinois, rahall, defazio, ms. brown of florida, ms. eddie bernice johnson of texas, mr. bishop of new york, ms. edwards, ms. hahn, mrs. frankel of florida and mrs. bustos. for the committee on natural resources for sections 103, 115, 144, 106 and 220 of the house bill and sections 2017, 2027, 5,002, 33, 2051, 3,005, 5,020, ,007, 5,118,

title 12 and section 1300 of the senate amendment and modifications committed to the conference, messrs. hastings of washington, bishop of utah and mrs. napolitano. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table house resolution 1848 with a senate amendment thereto and to concur in the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman mean to call up h.r. 1848? >> i do. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will rorpt title of the bill and the senate amendment. the clerk: h.r. 1848, an act to ensure that the federal aviation administration advances the safety of small airplanes and the continued development of the general aviation industry and for other purposes. senate amendments. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the original

request of the gentleman from kansas? without objection, the senate amendment is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now he want taint requests for one-minute speeches. -- will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the leader rise? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker,

millions of americans are coming home and opening their mailboxes to find shocking news. their health care plans are being taken away from them. the president broke a promise we knew he couldn't keep, and now millions of americans feel betrayed, wondering why their health care plans are being canceled. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, this letter was september to me by a constituent -- was sent to me by a constituent named bruno, and he's a constituent of mine in richmond, virginia. he's a self-employed individual who purchases health insurance through anthem blue cross blue shield. a few weeks ago he was stunned to receive this letter in the mail, and it clearly reads, to meet the requirements of the new law, your current plan can

no longer be offered. any me plan to cost him this nds and thousands -- plan will cost him thousands and thousands more. as every day passes, we continue to learn more and more people in the same situation. mr. gorra and this cancellation letter represents millions of obamacare victims across the country who are having their health insurance ripped away from them. as a result, we as republicans will have the keep your plan act on the floor tomorrow. e only way to stop the cancellation letter will be full repeal of this law. hopefully this legislation will

help those feeling the effects of the new health care law. tomorrow we'll see who will put their constituents before politics and vote for a bill that will allow americans to keep their plans. i sincerely hope that my colleagues will act as a united voice and take the first of many steps to provide relief to the american people from the many, many burdens brought about by obamacare. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico ise? ms. lujan grisham: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lujan grisham: mr. speaker, on veterans day, i had the honor of speaking at a veterans ceremony in albuquerque where i was reminded of our solemn responsibility that we have as lawmakers to do everything we can do to stand up for those who stand up for us. that's why last month i

introduced the veterans independent living enhancement act. bipartisan legislation that will help disabled veterans live independently and participate in family and community life. currently only 2,700 veterans in the entire country can enroll in the v.a.'s highly successful independent living program each year. when you compare that to the 2.6 million veterans of the iraq and afghanistan wars alone, it is clear that this number is far too low, preventing veterans from getting the services and support they need. my bill, which has both democratic and republican co-sponsors, along with the support of a dozen different veterans and health organizations, would remove this arbitrary cap so that every veteran would ben frit from the independent living -- would benefit from the independent living program who can participate in it. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to take up this commonsense, bipartisan legislation. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, the president's announcement today does little to change to act. the president's plan, if you like your plan, you can keep it, is an empty promise. californians are finding out firsthand in the form of a letter that their current plan has been canceled. one of those one million californians happens to be a constituent of mine from bakersfield, california. he wrote me recently how obamacare has failed. mr. mccarthy: he writes, our youngest son was born with a rare genetic condition that results in severe mental retardation. an inability to walk or talk and a need to be tube fed directly to his surgecally implanted port in his stomach. -- surgically implanted port in

his stomach. our insurance company has been great helping our son, who requires 24-hour care and prescriptions and formula which is expensive. we learned that our previous coverage, not cheap by any means, with the premium of nearly $1,000 a month, is no longer available. nd that for a far inferior replacement coverage with more out-of-pocket coverage, bringing our total to over $1,600 a month. with the added out-of-pocket expenses we anticipate for his care in the coming year, we expect to pay $24,000 more for the care of next year than this year, all thanks to a.c.a. that is why we must take up and pass keep your health plan act, and we ask the democrats to join with us to keep a pledge, to keep a promise and stop increasing the cost for the

constituents. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? without objection. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise to tell the story of one of my constituents' experiences with the affordable care act. allen from santa barbara county. prior to the affordable care act, his wife was paying $20,000 a year in insurance premiums. he has a pre-existing condition, so even though it cost so much, she was thankful to have any coverage at all. now, when covered california, our online marketplace opened, she made a call, looked at her options and found a plan that works for her. this plan saved them $8,000 a year, and it was a much better plan. now, we know that the rollout

nationally has been sloppy, but the law is not perfect and there are real issues we must fix. and we must fix those problems without diminishing the true benefits the law is giving to my constituents and those across the country. we must ensure that all americans have access to quality, affordable health care. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota -- michigan. >> mr. speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent to speak -- to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. upton: mr. speaker, for the last three years, the president personally promised that if they like their current health care plan that they can keep it no matter what, period. but cancellation notices are now arriving in millions of mailboxes across the country. and in michigan, the great state of michigan, some 225,000

folks will see their plans terminated because of this law. that's twice the number of people who have even been -- who have even tried to select a plan nationwide. now, i've heard from countless families back home that took the president at his word. they're upset, yes, they are, and worried how they're going to make ends meet. a self-employed family of three in bangor, michigan, had purchased their own insurance for more than 30 years. their blue cross blue shield plan was working well, had no deductible, $750 monthly premium. to replace it, the premium is going to nearly double to $1393 and their du ductible will jump to $2,800. in their own words, they told us they had been thrown under the bus. sadly, they're not alone. tomorrow, we will vote on the keep your health care plan act, a straightforward, one-page bill that says if you like your coverage, you ought to be able to keep it. let's keep that promise. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to share with you a story of a couple zaccos.nsylvania, the mr. cartwright: in a one-on-one session a week ago monday, beverly and bob sat as the navigator, mr. hartman, worked online through their application with them. this time, although they had a prior bad experience, the online connection worked like a charm, hartman said, and once it's finished, the zaccos will get a plan that is $500 less expensive than the cobra coverage they had been

purchasing for $1,200, even without subsidies. at 62 years old, mr. zaccos is hoping with some adjustments to his income and his wife's medicare, he could qualify for hundreds more a month in subsidies. and i take that from the allentown morning call. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana rise? without objection. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to co-sponsor the keep your health plan act, to make sure individuals can keep the health care plans they like and need. i asked hoosiers in the state of indiana to share their stories with me about their experiences with obamacare. the stories are shocking. kathryn from south bend, got this letter from her insurance company stating that her plan will be canceled. her monthly payments will ncrease from $186 per month to $329 per month, nearly double.

cancer m elkhart is a patient undergoing chemotherapy. she has to pay over $1,200 a month for her own coverage. barton said his group premiums will increase up to 80% this year. these are serious problems causing incredible hardships for the very people that we represent. it's time to work on commonsense reforms that will lower health care costs and improve the quality of care for our constituents. if we work together, we can get it done. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. davis: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. late last wednesday, the 57-year-old of libertyville became one of the first enrollees for health insurance

after glitch-stricken online marketplace operated by the federal government for 36 states, including illinois. i just kept trying, she said. tell people to just keep trying and they'll get in eventually. with federal tax credits, they will pay about $260 a month in premiums, less than what they paid before. they will be able to retain their family doctor and their dentist and their annual deductible will drop to $1,500 from $5,000. just keep trying. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the house of representatives has voted numerous times to repeal obamacare, but the president finally admitted today that obamacare is just not working. and so to save his flawed legislation, he has decided to selectively enforce the law.

the individual man darktse the idea that you can keep your own insurance. he said he won't enforce the fine for noncompliance for one year. his method is unconstitutional. the constitution requires congress to write, rewrite and amend laws. no president can just use administrative discretion to not enforce laws or change the law. administrative discretion is just not mentioned in the constitution. selective enforcement violates the 14th amendment. no president can just administratively change any law. what's next? is he going to raise taxes by administrative order? congress must write the law. the president must enforce the law. the house will address this very issue legally tomorrow by bringing up legislation that now the president seems to support. i assume the former constitutional law professor will sign on this excellent legislation that you can keep your insurance if you like it. and that's just the way it is. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: ithout objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, over 200,000 pennsylvanians have been notified that they will lose their plans because of president obama's health care law. what these numbers don't tell you is the story of hardworking pennsylvanians like these two. don is a marine corps veteran and a former coal miner. he and karen run a ministry that helps people in developing countries. rough rough done recently -- don -- mr. rothfus: don recently let me know that he will lose his plan. he said he specifically bought a plan that met his needs. i liked my plan very much and it was something i could afford. when don and karen were able to get onto the website, the plan he was offered had a deductible of more than $6,000. in don's words, this is, quote,

ridiculous, and unaffordable. unfortunately their story is not unique. we need help -- health care reform that works for don and karen and the rest of the american people. the empowering patients first act and the american health care reform act provide a good place to start and a better way on health care reform. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? without objection. >> oklahoma, i rise today to say enough is enough. enough of the rhetoric, enough of the dishonesty. promises have been broken, we face critical situations that need to be made right. countless americans and many within the second district of oklahoma are going to their mailboxes only to learn that the health insurance plan they like is being canceled. in the house we have chosen to listen to the american people through keep your health plan act. mr. mullin: individuals can keep

the plan they like and we can clean up the damage done by this administration's failures. aside from the consequences on individuals, business owners like me also face mounting regulations and penalties as a result of obamacare. small businesses provide stability to our economy and employ millions of americans. that stability has been jeopardized by the result of obamacare. i will not sit back and watch americans be subject to empty promises with no solution in sight. i encourage my colleagues to join me in saying enough is enough and vote in support of keep your heament plan act. i yield back -- your health plan act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the entleman from colorado rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, as my colleagues today have already pointed out, the president made this promise to the american people. if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan. period. i have in my hands a letter sent to my office from noel from

akron, colorado, in my district. this is in part what it says. mr. gardner: i'm 37-year-old auto motive mechanic in the family business, volunteer firefighter, devout catholic. my wife is a 33-year-old third grade teacher. our daughter, a 2-year-old, our son is a 1-year-old and our third child is due in march. i received a letter from rocky mountain health plan stating my existing policy is canceled as of january 1, 2014, due to mandated government policies. 250,000 coloradans have lost their insurance. that's more people than have now signed up across this country nationwide for obamacare. you're not alone. i join you because i too lost my health insurance when i chose to opt out of the congressional coverage. one of the 250,000 people that lost our coverage and it is time for this president to uphold his promise to the american people. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise?

without objection. >> mr. speaker, as a physician my goal is to make certain that every american has access to quality, affordable health care. the president and congressional democrats promised that you can keep your health insurance if you like it. well, we learned yesterday that in my home state of indiana, only 701 hoosiers have signed up successfully for the affordable care act while over 108,000 hoosiers have had their current plans canceled. i think the people of indiana know, this promise has not been kept. mr. bucshon: mary from evansville, indiana, wrote to me about this very thing. she said, our insurance is excellent. i had a heart attack a year ago, we met our deductible this year, but insurance has paid for everything recommended. two months of cardiac rehab, prirpgses and even more surgery -- prescriptions and even more surgery. my insurance and my doctors saved my life and now auto -- and now i'm at risk of losing both. on facebook andrea wrote that she was able to extends her plan for her and her son until next december, then it will be canceled. what happened to if you want to

keep your health care, you can, she went on. and finally allen summed up his frustration in one sentence. i will not have insurance beginning january 1, end of story. mr. speaker, these are real stories that affect real people, hardworking families just trying to get by. mr. speaker, we need to hold the president and congressional democrats to their promise. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the entlewoman from kansas rise? ms. jenkins: address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jenkins: across kansas, folks are struggling from the affects of obamacare. this cancellation letter is from greg and linda in osage city who wrote to tell me their son was losing his health care plan. linda spent hours each night for weeks trying to sign up for a new plan on the website. she tried the online chat, she tried calling the number and no one could answer her questions.

they were forced to add their son to greg's more expensive employer plan and now their son's health insurance bill is going up 50% each month. after years of knowing about these problems, today the president tried to make good on his promise, if you like your plan, you can keep it. but for greg and linda, it's likely too late to the dead line. they have no good options. we must continue to work for hardworking american families who are paying the price for this unworkable law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. period. if you like your doctor, you can keep him, period. we all remember when we heard those words. here's an article from today's las vegas review journal. nearly 25,000 nevadans lose

insurance plans under obamacare, that's roughly 27% of the individual market in that state. one of those individuals is janet. janet's 55 years old and battling recurrent cancer. she's had the same insurance policy for 11 years. mr. heck: for 11 years that policy and those doctors have taken care of her and kept her alive. she's currently battling a recurrence undergoing chemotherapy and she received this letter from her insurer on september 25. we would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing us to be your heament insurance carrier. we are writing to advise you that due to the passage of the federal patient protection and affordable care act, effective december 31, 2013, your standard of basic individual health plan will be discontinued and terminated. you will no longer be able to continue coverage under this benefit plan as of this date. as janet valiantly battles her disease, the last thing she needs is the added stress of wondering about her insurance coverage. mr. president, it's time that

americans are allowed to keep their health care plan, period. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. peter earlying is a 24-year-old from middleland, texas, who has done everything he's supposed to do. when he was 18 he began working in the oil fields as a roustabout and through hard work and perseverance, he eventually became -- worked his way up to field operations manager. four years ago he married a beautiful young lady and they started a family. he now has three small boys and there's a fourth one on the way. but, mr. speaker, he's now in a bad position because of bad calls made by those law makers who voted for the affordable care act and the president who signed it into law. mr. conaway: thanks to obamacare, his company, in the face of a 40% increase in rates, has switched their health insurance plan. the kicker is that peter's wife is halfway through the pregnancy with their fourth child. his wife's doctor is not a part

of the new insurance plan. and they're going to have to spend an extra $18,000 out of pocket to stay with the doctor they like and the doctor they were promised they could keep. this is a broken promise that has turn what had should be a joyful and momentous occasion into a nightmare. as he said to one of my staff, i'm 24 years old, at my age, at this point in my career, this is not something that i should have to worry about. mr. speaker, this is not an intellectual exercise we engage in. obamacare is causing major problems for hardworking people like peter and his wife in the 11th district of texas. his wife is in tears over this issue. the american dream that he was working so hard to provide for his family has turned into a nightmare because of a bad lot. this is unacceptable and it's inexcusable and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 3.5 million americans have seen

their health care plans canceled under the affordable care act. i personally heard from many constituents in my district who are seeing their health care plans canceled. for example, anthony, who is a small business owner in my district, got these letters from his insurance plan saying that his plan would be canceled. as a result of that there's a new plan that's available to him, but his monthly cost goes up by a little over 80%. and that's low compared to some. he's in the process of building a business and he just hired his first employee. he told me he is scared to death to hire another employee because he just got his insurance cancel and the cost doubled. it's just another story of how this law is hurting people and stifling job creation. i'd like to ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting chairman upton's bill, the keep your health plan act. mr. stivers: i urge all of you to support it. thank you, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the entleman from kentucky rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, for the last four years, president obama repeatedly promised the american people that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. but for melody in lexington, kentucky, that's simply not true. melody received a notice that her health care plan was no longer good enough under obamacare. and when melody looked into options for new insurance, like so many other americans, she found out that her family's insurance costs would go up by 250% and their deductible would increase by $2,000. mr. barr: melody in this email told me, we do not qualify for any premium assistance, even though we are a family of three living on a single income. we are more likely to go without health care coverage because our premiums are going to cost more per year than we would wind up spending on medical expenses

without insurance. mr. speaker, this is not about politics. this is about real people in our districts that are being harmed by obamacare. the american people don't need apologies, they don't need temporary administrative waivers. they need permanent solutions that will protect hardworking americans from the coverage cancellations, loss of access to doctors and premium spikes. it's time for the president to keep his promise and allow americans who like their health care plans to keep them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana rise? without objection. mr. daines: mr. speaker, president obama promised if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. but for tens of thousands of montanans, his words are nothing more than a broken promise that has resulted in canceled insurance plans and rising health care costs. i've already heard from hundreds of montanans who are looking for

relief from obamacare and unfortunately the president's recent announcement isn't a long-term fix, nor does it address the core problems of this failed law. mr. speaker, this is called the people's house and i want to share the story of the people of montana tonight in this body. dean and summer from flat head county have an autistic son and a daughter with muscular dystrophy who were just notified as i spoke with the mom last week on the phone that their rates are going up $4,500 a year because of obamacare. or take for example jim, a business owner in troy, montana, who will need to cut employee hours to avoid paying the obamacare fine and keep his business afloat. or ann marie in mile city, montana, whose family is facing an additional $3,000 per year in health care costs due to increased premiums and deductibles. or paula, a health care provider in cow's bell, who is questioning the viability of her private practice and her ability to continue providing care to many of her parents -- patients. montanans deserve a permanent solution, not a short-term politically driven patch.

i will continue fighting to fully repeal obamacare in working toward real solutions to protect montanans' access to their doctors and the health care plans they want. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan rise? mr. miller: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, president obama misled the american people about obamacare and now he's admitted it. and here's a letter to me from a small business owner in my district. my husband and i have a small medical education business and ever since obamacare passed, our business has been cut in half, doctors are not spending money on education, so for the last four years, our business has really suffered. then we were told we could keep our insurance. we had good insurance. not junk. we currently pay $514 a month for the $2,000 deductible. we were canceled as of 12/31/13. to get anything near where we

had, we'll have to pay $1,900 a month which we cannot afford. so much for affordable health care. this is the first time in 30 years that we might not be able to have health insurance. we always run our life, not depending on the government for handouts and now we are losing our insurance. i ask you, what are we to do? americans are suffering. yes, something was wrong, and i believe that something needed to be done. but not this. mr. speaker, it's time to keep the promise to the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. such as alleging that he misled the public. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to share the realities of my

district the third district of arkansas. mr. womack: healthcare.gov can be described as dismal at best. only an embarrassing 250 arkansans have managed to enroll. shawn from fort smith and her husband are self-employed and have spent over 64 hours on healthcare.gov attempting to sign up for the insurance obamacare requires them to purchase. she then tried to sign up via telephone. that was also fruitless. the very few arkansans who have successfully logged on have found that over 60% of the cases, only one or two provider options offering plans that increased their premiums by as much as 600%. rod rogers of sulphur springs will see his insurance premiums go from $248 to $876 a month. jeff asher of russellville is facing budget-busting monthly premiums of over $900. in october, my fellow arkansas republicans and i wrote to

secretary sebelius to ask for more information on obamacare's effect on arkansans. much like the pleas from hardworking taxpayers asking for relief from the leadoff's suffocating regulations and overbearing mandates, our request was ignored. but we don't need a response from the administration to tell us what i'm hearing from my constituents. obamacare is raising the cost of health care, creating uncertainty in arkansas and hurting americans. we need to replace it with real reforms and focus on the patient, not the government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the mershon family of arkansas is another tragic example of the terrible toll the obamacare law is taking on the american people. this couple has never asked their government do other than make a good life for their kids. we regret to inform you we have

lost our health care coverage. it was not obamacare compliant. granted it, it wasn't cadillac style insurance but it was all we need. mr. crawford: so we go to the website. sticker shock is not how we felt. this is an absolute outrage. it was assured to us that our insurance would stay intact, period. our budget has turned to floss. seriously, it's beans and corn bread time, end of quote. mr. speaker, a politically motivated administrative fix does not solve the underlying issues for this disastrous laws. it may seem like it is beans and corn bread time for millions of those across our country. is it really the affordable care we were promised? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of the 3 1/2 million people who have today lost their health care coverage thanks to obamacare and in support of the reported 10

million americans who could lose their coverage between now and the end of the year. mr. speaker, president obama promised again and again that americans who like their health care plans would be able to keep them. well, we know now that it's simply not the case. in my hometown, glen davis, who moved to tennessee to care for her elderly parents, had health care coverage she liked and could afford. mr. fleischmann: she will pay as much as $300 more per month. that's an additional $3,600 per year for something she doesn't want and doesn't need. mr. speaker, this isn't right. our economy is struggling enough as it is. the last thing the american people need is an additional financial burden thrust on them by the federal government. obamacare needs to go, but at the very least, the president needs to keep your health care plan act up and uphold his promise to the american people.

thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. >> mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of martha, a constituent from cornelius, north carolina. she is a retired nurse and a retired insurance agent. she understands health insurance better than most. recently she received this letter explaining her insurance was canceled due to obamacare and her new plan will be twice as expensive. quoting her, this is nothing in the world wrong with my plan. what they are giving me is worse. i was told by the president that if i like my health care plan, which i do, i could keep it. mr. pit injury -- mr. pittenger: president obama made a simple direct promise to her. tomorrow i urge you in joining

me in voting for the keep your health care plan act. the american people don't need more apologies from the president. they need results. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina ise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in tomorrow of h.r. 3350, the keep your health plan act. president obama's statement that says if you like your health care plan you can keep t is ringing hollow for some 373,000 north carolinaians whose policies is being canceled. one of them is leon and liz russell, small business owners in waynesville, north carolina. mr. meadows: they were notified their $653 a month insurance premium will go to $1,322 in

2014. this is a yearly increase of over $8,000. they said to me, we cannot afford to pay it, period. what are we expected to do? for families like the russells, the white house will -- house will vote tomorrow on the keep your health care plan act, that will allow americans to keep their policies without penalty. president obama announced his intentions to allow insurers to keep offering canceled plans, but a one-year delay does not make good on his promise. the president needs to be working with congress to fix his flawed law. mr. speaker, we still have a broken website and we still have broken promises. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, the problems with this health care law won't be cured with political fixes,

because this isn't about politics. this is about real people. eople like paul and victoria mo morrisons of panama city. day they care for infants and toddlers with catastrophic injuries like blindness, autism and other developmental delays. mr. southerland: they deliver cancer treatments and medications. paul and victoria each received this letter from blue -- from florida blue informing them that their coverage was being canceled by the end of this year. their plans failed to meet the law's requirements for maternity and newborn care and pediatric dental care despite the fact that the morrisons are in their 60's and have no children. they were informed their new plans would increase their mbined premiums from $520 to $1,260 per month.

now, paul and victoria are trying to figure out how to keep alive a medical practice that's already been reduced from a 10-county area to just one. that's a real-world impact and a real-world example on this misguided law and that's why if you like your plan and you were promised that you could keep your plan, you should be able to keep your plan. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana rise? without objection. mrs. brooks: president obama told the american people if they like their health care they could keep it. one recently informed me that his policy will be terminated

because of balm care. jerry has never written a member of congress before, but losing his coverage and seeing his premium double has caused him to speak up. for jerry, obamacare is a broken promise. victoria, a part-time teacher from the indianapolis, area, reached out on facebook saying that a policy she purchased less than one year ago was being canceled. she tried oget on healthcare.gov to see what alternatives are available to her, but the site couldn't even confirm her identity. for victoria, obamacare is a broken promise. dwight, a business owner from indianapolis, received a cancellation notice from his insurer, the one i'm holding here in my hands. dwight's insurer is one of several insurers that have left the state of indiana. for dwight, obamacare is a broken promise. mr. speaker, americans deserve better. they deserve to keep their current insurance. obamacare is nothing more than a broken promise, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise?

>> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, millions of americans are losing their health care plans, their doctors and their confidence in the president's new health care law. mr. paulsen: the truth is the law is hurting americans rather than hurting them. millions have lost their health care coverage. one of my constituents, ron from chaplain, he's had his health care plan for 20 years. he likes his health plan. ron, like thousands of other minnesotans received a cancellation notice. another constituent emailed me this morning saying that his family health care plan was renewed but the costs were going up $5,400 this year. unfortunately, i've heard stories like these from many others in my community. mr. speaker, if you like your health insurance plan, you ought to be able to keep it. and no one should be forced to buy health insurance that isn't right for them or for their family's needs. i'll continue to work with all those that are willing to sit

down at the table and have a responsible solution and a real solution to our health care challenges. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. he has yielded back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? without objection. >> mr. speaker, i ask my constituents in florida's 17th district how obamacare is affecting them. one said they were upset that their coverage is going to go up by more than $300. another said it went from $204 a month to $720 per month and they couldn't afford that. others reported increases over 100, $200, evenly -- 100%, 200%, even 400%. one woman lost her primary care doctor of over 20 years. another whose husband lost five doctors, including a cardiologist, that has cared for him since his heart transplant, said they're not able to keep their doctors our their insurance plans. mr. rooney: worse of all is the

impact on florida families. one gentleman in my district says, i've looked at quotes for my family of three. it looks like it will cost us about $5,000 more a year. i may have to get a divorce so my wife and son can afford the insurance. if i do they'll qualify for discounts we don't get if we were married. mr. speaker, there are stories like this all across florida and the country. so much for if you like your plan you can keep it. now all of our constituents are suffering. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the president promised mr. griffin in my district and millions of other americans that if they wanted to they could keep their own doctor. unfortunately, he found out already that's not true. they were told they could keep

their own insurance company if they liked it. unfortunately that's not true either. they were told it would cost less. mr. posey: unfortunately, that's not true either. they were told it would not create a new tax. unfortunately that's not true either. they were told there would not be any rationing. unfortunately, that's not true either. it's not right, it's not fair and it's not good for the united states of america. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back. for what purpose does the entleman from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise to express my strong support for the keep your health plan act. i've heard from many folks across my district that they are losing the health care they have and like because of obamacare. mr. latta: jeff from columbus

grove wrote to alert me of a cancellation notice he received indicating his insurance policies is being dropped as of december 1 of this year. he has less than one month to find a new plan which will cost more, have fewer benefits and have higher deductibles. in addition, his choices for new health insurance options for the hospital and the local doctor he can choose. dwight from arlington wrote he and his wife received a notice that due to the a.c.a., his wife's insurance policy would no longer be available. coverage will d will double from $189 per month to $394 with increased deductible costs. finally, i've heard from a local township trustee that the township has received notice that their health insurance plan has been canceled because of the a.c.a.